2026-09-09 · District of Columbia · Courts

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals has held that a condominium association cannot extinguish a unit owner's claim for an injunction by adopting, mid-litigation, a rule that permits the thing the owner asked for on the association's own terms. In the same opinion, the court construed the Condominium Act's fee-shifting standard for the first time — and made it harder for owners and easier for associations in one respect, while rejecting the arithmetic that had been used to cut fee awards.¹

Burton as Trustee of the EB Trust v. Chase Point Unit Owners Association, Nos. 24-CV-1122 & 24-CV-1168, was argued March 25, 2026 and decided August 20, 2026. Judge Deahl wrote for a panel of Judges McLeese, Deahl and Howard. The Washington Metropolitan Chapter of the Community Associations Institute filed an amicus brief supporting the association.

What happened below

Trustees of a family trust owning a unit at the Chase Point condominium asked the board for permission to install a charging station for a Tesla, according to plans they presented in 2019. The association refused. The owners sued, raising seven claims and seeking, on all but one, declaratory or injunctive relief barring the association from blocking the installation.

A jury found for the owners on one claim — violation of the governing documents under D.C. Code § 42-1902.09(a) — and awarded $4,000. The association subsequently adopted “Rule S,” permitting charging stations on stated conditions, including a requirement to employ a contractor approved by the association. The trial court held the equitable claims moot and cut the fee award.

The mootness holding

The Court of Appeals disagreed. The owners had asked for a declaration that they could install “according to the plan they presented” in 2019. As the court put it: “The mere existence of Rule S, which indisputably does not give the Burtons any right to install a charging station according to their own plans, or through their own preferred vendor, thus does not moot out their requests for equitable relief.”

A remedial rule adopted on the association's terms is not the relief the owner sought, and it does not end the case.

1. Burton as Trustee of the EB Trust v. Chase Point Unit Owners Ass'n, Nos. 24-CV-1122 & 24-CV-1168 (D.C. Aug. 20, 2026) — slip opinion ↩
2. D.C. Code § 42-1902.09, Compliance with condominium instruments — including the “substantially prevailing party” fee provision at subsection (b) ↩