1776 K Street Associates

Court of Claims

1776 K Street Associates

221 Ct. Cl. 874, 1979 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 246, 1979 WL 10398

CourtUnited States Court of Claims

DecidedSeptember 28, 1979

DocketNo. 531-78

StatusPublished

This text of 221 Ct. Cl. 874 (1776 K Street Associates) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

1776 K Street Associates, 221 Ct. Cl. 874, 1979 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 246, 1979 WL 10398 (cc 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration or rehearing of the opinion filed July 18, 1979 is hereby denied. To explain why they paid for something they already owned, plaintiffs deny they knew their own title was good. This is different from the ordinary purchaser’s claim of ignorance of a defect in a seller’s title. That portion of the opinion which states that plaintiffs had notice of a possible claim the United States did not own the alleys, referring to existing case law, ante at 260-61, 602 F. 2d 354, 356-57, is not to be read as construing the local recording statutes of the District of the Columbia nor as announcing a blanket rule of law for the District regarding constructive notice to bona fide purchasers of land. Rather this statement was to demonstrate that plaintiffs failed to show that the equities supported the extraordinary and rarely granted form of relief which they sought — the lifting of the bar of res judicata. A reading of Fitzhugh v. United States, 40 F. 2d 797 (D.C. Cir. 1930), and Brooks v. Brooks, XXVIII Wash. L. Rptr. 335 (Sup. Ct. D.C. 1900) demonstrates that to say the least there was a possible dispute. Plaintiffs either knowingly disregarded these cases or failed properly to research the title in deciding to pay the fees exacted. "Notice” as used by this court is not intended to be the type of notice which recording statutes speak of but that notice which a prudent person paying money to the government would not disregard.

Plaintiffs failed to show that the equities were in their favor, and, therefore, the extraordinary relief sought by plaintiffs — a lifting of the bar of res judicata — was denied.

A majority of the judges in active service

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration or rehearing of the opinion filed July 18, 1979 is hereby denied. To explain why they paid for something they already owned, plaintiffs deny they knew their own title was good. This is different from the ordinary purchaser’s claim of ignorance of a defect in a seller’s title. That portion of the opinion which states that plaintiffs had notice of a possible claim the United States did not own the alleys, referring to existing case law, ante at 260-61, 602 F. 2d 354, 356-57, is not to be read as construing the local recording statutes of the District of the Columbia nor as announcing a blanket rule of law for the District regarding constructive notice to bona fide purchasers of land. Rather this statement was to demonstrate that plaintiffs failed to show that the equities supported the extraordinary and rarely granted form of relief which they sought — the lifting of the bar of res judicata. A reading of Fitzhugh v. United States, 40 F. 2d 797 (D.C. Cir. 1930), and Brooks v. Brooks, XXVIII Wash. L. Rptr. 335 (Sup. Ct. D.C. 1900) demonstrates that to say the least there was a possible dispute. Plaintiffs either knowingly disregarded these cases or failed properly to research the title in deciding to pay the fees exacted. "Notice” as used by this court is not intended to be the type of notice which recording statutes speak of but that notice which a prudent person paying money to the government would not disregard.

Plaintiffs failed to show that the equities were in their favor, and, therefore, the extraordinary relief sought by plaintiffs — a lifting of the bar of res judicata — was denied.

A majority of the judges in active service

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

221 Ct. Cl. 874, 1979 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 246, 1979 WL 10398, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/1776-k-street-associates-cc-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack