## Facts

- Deborah Redman rented an apartment in a Washington, D.C. building owned by Potomac Place Associates, LLC, which pursued a condominium conversion.
- A tenants association voted to approve the conversion in an election conducted, supervised, and certified by the District’s housing regulator.
- Potomac served Redman with a statutory 120-day conversion notice that also set a vacate date and thus operated as a notice to vacate if she did not purchase.
- The notice required Redman to vacate by September 30, 2006 if she did not elect to purchase; she neither purchased nor vacated by that date.
- Potomac filed a possessory (eviction) action on October 5, 2006; Redman answered and raised defenses.
- While the eviction case was pending, an amendment to D.C. Code § 42-3402.08 became effective on November 16, 2006, adding protections for certain low-income elderly or disabled tenants in the context of conversion-related evictions.
- Redman claimed she qualified as a disabled tenant under the amendment and argued it barred her eviction.
- The trial court rejected Redman’s reliance on the amendment and awarded possession to Potomac.

## Issues

1. Whether the amended D.C. Code § 42-3402.08, effective during the eviction action, barred a conversion-related eviction of a tenant who claimed disabled status but was not in lawful possession when the amendment took effect.
2. Whether the amendment should be applied retroactively to restore or extend possession rights that had expired under a valid conversion notice to vacate.

## Decision

- The District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment awarding possession to Potomac.
- The court held the amendment did not benefit Redman because she was not in lawful possession when it became effective.
- The court declined to treat the amendment as retroactive in a way that would revive expired tenancy/possession rights.
- Because lawful possession at the amendment’s effective date was not satisfied, the court did not treat Redman’s claimed disabled status as independently dispositive.

## Legal Principles

- A condominium-conversion notice that specifies a vacate date may function as a valid notice to vacate under D.C. Code § 42-1904.08.
- Statutory amendments are presumed to operate prospectively absent clear legislative intent for retroactive application.
- Tenant protections tied to conversion-related evictions apply only if the tenant is in lawful possession when the protections become effective; they do not restore possession rights that have already lapsed.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the landlord’s right to possession because the tenant’s lawful right to remain ended when she failed to vacate by the statutory notice date, and a later-effective tenant-protection amendment could not be used to retroactively bar the conversion-related eviction.


Redman v. Potomac Place Assocs., LLC, 972 A.2d 316 (D.C. 2009)