Douglas v. Kriegsfeld Corp., 884 A.2d 1109 (2005)

Citation: Douglas v. Kriegsfeld Corp., 884 A.2d 1109 (2005)
Parent Document: Douglas v. Kriegsfeld Corp., 884 A.2d 1109 (2005)
Jurisdiction: DC (municipal)
Effective Date: 2005-10-13
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1472683/douglas-v-kriegsfeld-corp/ ↗

Full Text

1,195 chars

To support its ruling that the tenant's request for accommodation was untimely, the trial court relied on our Grubb decision[24] for equitable authority to deny the tenant relief. Grubb, however, was a local law decision addressing a notice to cure or quit unaffected by a Fair Housing Act defense. It has no application to the timing issue under federal law. Furthermore, Grubb itself noted that a "relevant factor in determining whether forfeiture [of a lease] should be ordered is the presence or absence of `fair dealing' by the landlord."[25] (Emphasis added.) It does not appear that the trial court considered this landlord factor when it relied on Grubb to deny *1125 the tenant's discrimination defense on grounds of timing. More specifically, it does not appear that the trial court considered the possibility, reasonably inferable from the evidence, that between February 20 and early June 2002a period longer than three monthsthe landlord's counsel refused to respond in any way to tenant's counsel's request for a reasonable accommodation. Given the factual record to date and the applicable law, therefore, we cannot say as a matter of law that the tenant's request was untimely.

Other Sections in This Document (533)

Full Text