Section 11-721

Citation: Section 11-721
Parent Document: Brown v. Pearson (2020)
Jurisdiction: DC (municipal)
Effective Date: 2020-04-02
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4741602/brown-v-pearson/ ↗

Full Text

1,016 chars

neither held in contempt nor sanctioned, there is no basis for this appeal.”). In any
event, we do not see how the court abused its discretion in this regard. When the
court issued its decision, Mr. Pearson had missed only one payment, and Ms. Brown
indisputably owed him money he could have used to make that payment. See Davis,
456 A.2d at 826 (plurality opinion) (explaining that the extent of compliance and
reasons for noncompliance are important considerations for a motion for sanctions).
       Finally, we decline to address on the merits Mr. Pearson’s argument that the
court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the action for possession. Mr. Pearson
did not file a cross-appeal. And in any event, “[a]n order denying a motion to dismiss
ordinarily does not meet [the] standard of finality and usually is not immediately
appealable.” Heard v. Johnson, 810 A.2d 871, 876 (D.C. 2002) (footnote omitted).
Mr. Pearson has made no attempt to show that this case falls under an exception to
that general rule.

Other Sections in This Document (332)

Full Text