DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

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/ ↗

Other Sections in This Document (332)

Full Text

1,362 chars 
In Part IV of our original opinion we answered "no"; the landlord is entitled to *17 that money—to the contracted rent—as a matter of law. The tenant, on rehearing, says we were wrong. She argues that Part IV in effect requires a tenant, in derogation of Super.Ct. L & T R. 5(b), supra note 8, formally to plead Javins defenses to a complaint based on a notice to quit, in order to preserve the right to a post-trial evidentiary hearing under McNeal. We understand the tenant to mean, more specifically, that Part IV has two implications: either we have (1) legitimated in a notice case—and required—a formally pleaded Javins defense (presumably by an amended answer) directed at the litigation period, in order to receive a McNeal hearing at the end of the proceeding; or we have (2) held, in effect, that Javins defenses are never available to challenge disbursement of registry funds to the landlord in a notice case, and that if a tenant wishes to assure her payments into the registry remain undispersed to the landlord pending the tenant's assertion of code violations as an offset, the tenant must file a separate rent abatement claim in the Small Claims Branch or in the Civil Division with the hope of arranging an extension of the protective order until both claims are resolved. We acknowledge that our opinion is susceptible of either interpretation.