Frequently Asked Questions
Q: What is D.C. Code §26-803?
A: §26-803 is the adverse claimant statute as copied below:
Notice to any bank or trust company doing business in the District of Columbia of an adverse claim to a deposit standing on its books to the credit of any person shall not be effectual to cause said bank or trust company to recognize said adverse claimant unless said adverse claimant shall also either: (1) procure a restraining order, injunction, or other appropriate process against said bank or trust company from a court of competent jurisdiction in a cause therein instituted by him wherein the person to whose credit the deposit stands is made a party and served with summons; or (2) execute to such bank or trust company, in form and with sureties acceptable to it, a bond indemnifying said bank or trust company from any and all liability, loss, damage, costs, and expenses, for and on account of the payment of such adverse claim or the dishonor of the check or other order of the person to whose credit the deposit stands on the books of said bank or trust company; provided, that this section shall not apply to any instance where the person to whose credit the deposit stands is a fiduciary for such adverse claimant, and the facts constituting such relationship, together with the facts showing reasonable cause of belief on the part of the said claimant that the said fiduciary is about to misappropriate said deposit, are made to appear by the affidavit of such claimant.
Q: Why is this statute not effective.
A: My experience as an observer of the ongoing litigation shows that a judge in D.C. Superior Court can water down the provisions of the statute to any degree such that the statute becomes rendered almost meaningless.
Q: Do you believe that this is unique to D.C.
A: Yes. In other state jurisdictions the judges are chosen by, and answerable to the people they serve. In D.C. the judges are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The D.C. courts are federally funded. As the saying goes, 'he who pays the piper, calls the tune'.
Q: What is the strangest thing about this situation that you have encountered?
A: That is a tough one because there are so many head scratchers. However, if I had to pick one, it would be the ability of a party (in this case, the bank) to be both defendant and plaintiff at the same time, in the same court, in the same cause of action.
Q: How is that even possible?
A: Here is how it works. You sue the bank for dishonor of your checks and the case is assigned to Judge 1. Court staff arrange a substitute Judge 2 for the initial hearing. The bank then tells Judge 2 that it would respond by filing an interpleader which Judge 2 assumes would be heard by Judge 1 on his return. The bank then sues you in its interpleader action that the court then assigns to Judge 3. Judge 2 is temporary and does not know about judge 3, and Judge 1 just proceeds as if nothing happened. The bank is then simultaneously before Judge 1 as Defendant and before Judge 3 as Plaintiff. If Judge 3 is partial to the bank, then you are screwed. The court's rules of civil procedure would do nothing to protect you if your opponent has a friend in the court. The impossible is rendered possible.
Q: Is that not case fixing?
A: Some may say the same about plea deals.
Q: Most important lesson from observing court proceedings?
A: Always request a jury trial no matter what.
Q: How can I help?
A: I have a link where interested persons can donate both funds and legal expertise in order to facilitate taking this matter to the highest court in the land. It would assist me greatly if you would subscribe to my mailing list. You will receive timely updates as events occur.