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
783 charsIII. "It is trite but true to state that forfeitures are not favored. A breach by a tenant must be a violation of a substantial obligation to be enforceable by forfeiture." 2 MILTON A. FRIEDMAN, FRIEDMAN ON LEASES § 16.2, at 975 (3d ed. 1990). We are dealing here, however, not with the tenant's eviction but with the grant of summary judgment in the tenant's favor, a ruling which prevented the landlord from maintaining *Page 682 a suit for possession at all. It is for the trial court to determine whether the breaches alleged here were of sufficient magnitude and willfulness to allow the landlord to oust the tenant. See Entrepreneur, Ltd. v. Yasuna, 498 A.2d 1151,1160-62 (D.C. 1985) (collecting cases where breach has led to forfeiture and cases where forfeiture disallowed).