Section 45-1561

Citation: Section 45-1561
Parent Document: Habib v. Thurston, 517 A.2d 1 (1986)
Jurisdiction: DC (municipal)
Effective Date: 1986-10-30
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1995493/habib-v-thurston/ ↗

Full Text

1,091 chars

It often will be true, as in Management Partnership, Inc., that the amount of money in the registry is not necessarily the amount to which the landlord is ultimately entitled for rent/damages during the litigation period; the landlord may be entitled to more, or less. But a *24court in most cases cannot rationally make a final disbursement decision at a McNeal hearing (unless the parties agree a portion is uncontroverted) without initially determining that underlying issue, for which the right to a jury trial must be preserved. A disbursement order after the conclusion of a possessory action is not like a summary possession order, based on “some rent” in an unadjudicated amount being due. See Tutt v. Doby, 148 U.S.App.D.C. 171, 459 F.2d 1195 (1972). While the right to possession does not depend on an adjudication of exactly how much rent is overdue, the right to money under a final disbursement order presupposes resolution — indeed, an adjudication — of the parties’ respective allegations as to the amount of rent/damages, if any, due the landlord for the litigation period.19

Other Sections in This Document (332)

Full Text