## Facts

- A cooperative apartment corporation contracted to sell a unit to John R. Pinkett, Jr. for $7,950 and, at the same time, issued him a 99-year proprietary lease for the unit.
- Pinkett paid a deposit and agreed to make monthly payments totaling $90, allocated among deferred purchase money, maintenance charges, and installments on a note used to complete settlement.
- The purchase arrangement provided that Pinkett would receive a certificate of ownership and the proprietary lease, and that continued occupancy depended on remaining a member and complying with the governing documents.
- The proprietary lease authorized termination upon default in “any obligation” or installment and expressly permitted the cooperative to regain possession by “summary dispossess proceedings” or other lawful process.
- Pinkett took possession and made two $90 payments, then stopped paying while remaining in the unit; at least three monthly installments were unpaid when suit was filed.
- The cooperative filed an action for summary possession for nonpayment, and Pinkett responded that he was not a tenant and owed no “rent” because the payments were purchase installments and related charges.
- The trial court ruled for Pinkett, viewing the relationship as more like a partnership than landlord–tenant and concluding summary possession was unavailable.

## Issues

1. Whether a member-occupant holding under a proprietary lease stands in a landlord–tenant relationship with the cooperative such that the cooperative may pursue summary possession upon default.
2. Whether periodic payments that include purchase-money and other charges may be treated as “rent” or rent-equivalents for purposes of summary dispossess remedies.
3. Whether membership or equity participation in the cooperative negates tenant status under the proprietary lease.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the judgment for Pinkett.
- The court held that the governing contract and proprietary lease created a leasehold relationship enforceable through summary dispossess proceedings as expressly provided in the lease.
- Pinkett’s member/purchaser status did not bar treating him as a tenant under the proprietary lease for possessory-remedy purposes.
- Pinkett’s failure to make the required monthly payments constituted a default triggering the cooperative’s contractual right to terminate and recover possession by summary proceedings.
- The case was remanded with directions to enter judgment consistent with the cooperative’s right to summary possession.

## Legal Principles

- A proprietary lease issued by a cooperative may establish a landlord–tenant relationship for possession and default remedies, even when the occupant is also a member/shareholder.
- Where the parties’ documents condition occupancy on periodic payments and expressly authorize summary dispossession upon default, courts will enforce that structure according to its terms.
- Periodic obligations tied to continued occupancy may function as rent for summary possession purposes even if internally allocated among purchase-money installments, maintenance charges, and related payment components.
- Corporate membership in a cooperative does not convert the relationship into a partnership or immunize a defaulting occupant from eviction when the lease permits termination and repossession.

## Conclusion

The court held that a cooperative may pursue summary possession against a defaulting member-occupant when the proprietary lease and purchase agreement create a leasehold conditioned on periodic payments and expressly authorize summary dispossess proceedings upon default.


1915 16th St. Co-op. Ass'n v. Pinkett, 85 A.2d 58 (D.C. Mun. Ct. App. 1951)