#Matthew banks columbia nc full#
#Matthew banks columbia nc trial#

Law” in the October 2001 agreement was a reference to the opportunity to purchase the property that the parties expected that Matt Banks qua tenant would have under the Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act (“TOPA”), D.C.Code §§ 42–3404.02 et seq.

#Matthew banks columbia nc full#

Papageorge under an earlier agreement which shall remain in full force and effect.” As that memorandum reflects, the reference to “tenant rights to purchase under D.C. Matt Banks assigned his TOPA rights ․ to George C. Subsequently, on December 9, 2010, Banks and Papageorge executed a “Memorandum Regarding Banks Lease” that affirmed this agreement, providing that “t is understood and agreed that with regard to the lease of 2507 33rd Street S.E. Law in the lease of 2507 33rd Street S.E. Banks, hereby assign my tenant rights to purchase under D.C. 3 In October 2001, Matt Banks entered into an agreement with Papageorge, the full text of which provided as follows:įor valuable consideration I, Matt W. Matt Banks was a tenant at the property prior to the April 2001 foreclosure, and he continued in occupancy for several years after the foreclosure pursuant to his purported Valentine rights. 2 The factual background set out below is largely drawn from Papageorge's opposition to the Bankses' motion to dismiss or for summary judgment. (the “property”), at an April 2001 foreclosure sale. This appeal is the latest development in a spate of litigation that erupted after deed-of-trust holder ESB purchased the property at 2507 33rd Street, S.E.

#Matthew banks columbia nc trial#

Papageorge appeals from the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of appellees and from the court's denial of his motion for reconsideration of that ruling. Banks' efforts to protect his rights as a tenant of certain real property.” The Bankses filed a motion to dismiss the complaint or alternatively for summary judgment, arguing that the Agreement was “void as champertous.” 1 Considering materials outside the complaint, the trial court treated the motion as one for summary judgment and entered judgment in favor of the Bankses, agreeing that the Agreement was champertous and therefore void in its entirety. In February 2012, appellant George Papageorge filed a one-paragraph complaint against appellees Matt and Diane Banks, alleging that they had “absconded with settlement monies and cashed a check knowing that most of the funds were liened and intended to go to the plaintiff.” Thereafter, Papageorge sought and obtained a prejudgment writ of attachment against the Bankses, having advised the court that the Bankses had been paid funds from a settlement agreement with Eastern Savings Bank (“ESB”), and that Papageorge was entitled to those funds under a separate agreement (the “DecemAgreement” or the “Agreement”) with Matt Banks, under which Papageorge had “agreed to finance Mr. Jonathan Zucker filed a brief for appellees. Decided: December 19, 2013īefore THOMPSON and EASTERLY, Associate Judges, and FARRELL, Senior Judge.