Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
- Citation
- Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
- Parent Document
- Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
- Jurisdiction
- DC (municipal)
- Effective Date
- 1992-05-12
- Original Source
- https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2309241/cormier-v-mcrae/ ↗
Other Sections in This Document (35)
- Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
- Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
- Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
- Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
- Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
- Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
- Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
- Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
- Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
- Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
- Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
- Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
- Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
- Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
- Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
- Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
- Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
- Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
- Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
- Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
- Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
- Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
- Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
- Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
- Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
- Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
- Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
- Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
- Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
- Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
- Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
- Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
- Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
- Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
- Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
Full Text
831 charsThe trial court concluded that the 30-day notice requirement of § 45-2551(b) applied but that § 45-1402 still governed the timing of the notice. The court accordingly accepted the tenant's argument that the landlord should have given notice 30 days or more before the day of the month on which the lease began to run. The trial court reasoned that, because the landlord notified the tenant to cure or vacate by March 31, 1990, the landlord — to achieve that goal — should have given notice no later than February 22, 1990, 30 days before March 24, the day the monthly tenancy began.1 The tenant, however, did not receive notice until February 27, 1990. The trial court ruled that because the notice did not satisfy § 45-1402, the landlord was not entitled to sue for possession and granted the tenant's motion for summary judgment.