Amicus brief on behalf of WMCCAI filed August 27, 2025, in the D.C. Court of Appeals

Amicus brief on behalf of WMCCAI filed August 27, 2025, in the D.C. Court of Appeals

On August 27, 2025, an amicus brief was filed on behalf of the Washinton Metro Chapter of Community Associations Institute (“WMCCAI”) in the D.C. Court of Appeals Case No. 24-CV-1122, Evelyn Burton, Trustee of the EB Trust, et al., v Chase Pointe Unit Owner’s Association, et al.  Chadwick, Washington, Moriarty, Elmore & Bunn, P.C., shareholder Michael Gartner, Esq., along with attorney Cary Devorsetz, Esq., from Alderman, Devorsetz & Hora PLLC, prepared the brief and argue therein that the trial court erred in interpreting the phrase “substantially prevailing party” under D.C. Code §42-1902.09(b) to carry the same meaning as “prevailing party” when considering awarding attorney’s fees and costs under the DC Condominium Act.  The Court’s interpretation effectively read the word “substantially” out of the statute, thereby justifying a partial fee award to the Plaintiffs in the case even though the Defendants arguably prevailed on more claims and issues.

In the case at bar, which was brought to court by unit owners (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”) against their condominium unit owners association, its president and a committee chair (collectively, the “Defendants”), the Defendants prevailed on 6 out of the 7 counts at issue. On the 7^th count the jury ruled partially on the side of the Plaintiffs. When it came to motions for attorneys’ fees and costs, the court awarded the Plaintiffs partial attorneys’ fees and full costs as the prevailing party, given that they succeeded in one count of their lawsuit. The Defendants’ motion for attorneys’ fees and costs was denied because they did not succeed on all 7 counts.

The trial court’s interpretation was based on case law discussing the “prevailing party” standard and did not take into account the effect of a small but substantive change to the language regarding award of attorneys’ fees under the amended code within the D.C. Condominium Act. Specifically, in 2014, the D.C. Condominium Act was amended to provide a “substantially prevailing party” standard for an award of attorneys’ fees (rather than “prevailing party” standard). 

This change was paramount to associations defending against multi-count lawsuits from unit owners. As the amicus brief points out, the difference between “prevailing” and “substantially prevailing” is material and the modifier “substantially” must be given effect in the statute.  In this case the Defendants were successful in defending themselves against 6 of the 7 counts, and the brief argues they should therefore be considered the substantially prevailing party (and eligible for the court to award them their attorneys’ fees).

This case raises important questions regarding statutory interpretation under the D.C. Condominium Act. The interpretation applied by the D.C. Superior Court at the trial level, which the brief argues was in error, could have far-reaching effects and negatively impact condominium associations in the District. Most associations are non-profit and volunteer run organizations that use their funds from assessments to maintain their properties. The standard for award of attorneys’ fees in the D.C. Condominium Act was amended in part to ensure that associations would be able to have funds to keep doing that.  When an associations prevails substantially, it should be awarded its attorneys’ fees and costs rather than, as happened here, being denied those fees and costs when the Plaintiffs prevailed on only a small portion of the claims they brought.

CAI has always been an avid advocate for common interest community associations across the United States (as well as internationally).  The Washington Metro Chapter of CAI is the largest chapter in the organization. Given the significance concerns this ruling presents, and that it is happening in WMCCAI’s backyard, this amicus brief is timely, relevant, and may prove helpful in protecting the integrity and serving the best interests of condominium and community associations in the District of Columbia and beyond.

Full copy of the amicus brief filed can be found here and motion for leave to file here.