Pajic v. Foote Properties, LLC, 72 A.3d 140 (2013)

Citation: Pajic v. Foote Properties, LLC, 72 A.3d 140 (2013)
Parent Document: Pajic v. Foote Properties, LLC, 72 A.3d 140 (2013)
Jurisdiction: DC (municipal)
Effective Date: 2013-07-25
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5146856/pajic-v-foote-properties-llc/ ↗

Full Text

798 chars

That the fee-shifting provision in the lease was plainly illegal under the D.C. Municipal Regulations and should not have been enforced does not end our analysis. Mr. Pajic, proceeding pro se, did not make this argument in the trial court. In general, this court’s review on appeal is limited to those issues that were properly preserved. District of Columbia v. Helen Dwight Reid Educ. Found., 766 A.2d 28, 33 n. 3 (D.C.2001). The rule is one of discretion, however; thus, “in ‘exceptional situations and when necessary to prevent a clear miscarriage of justice apparent from the record,’ we may deviate from the usual rule.” Id. (quoting Williams v. Gerstenfeld, 514 A.2d 1172, 1177 (D.C.1986)); see also McClintic v. McClintic, 39 A.3d 1274, 1277 n. 1 (D.C.2012). We have repeatedly affirmed our

Other Sections in This Document (33)

Full Text