Skip to main content
INTERNAL PROTOTYPE — NOT LEGAL ADVICE — DO NOT SEND

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

Full Text

2,095 chars
7 The tenant's argument that the timing provision of § 45-1402 applies to termination of month-to-month apartment leases for breach of a covenant other than for nonpayment of rent is premised on an assumption that § 45-1402 (and its statutory predecessors) applied to such residential tenancies before rent control regulations were enacted. The statutory language appears broad enough to cover such terminations; the analysis in Jones discussing the interplay of rent control provisions and notices to quit before the 1980 Rental Housing Act was adopted suggests that § 45-1402 and its companion provisions applied until the merger of notices to cure and to quit recognized in Cooley; and local landlord-tenant law treatise writers have assumed as much. See JULIAN KARPOFF, LANDLORD AND TENANT LAW IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Ch. VI § 61 (1977); KENNETH LOEWINGER AND R.J. TURNER, LOEWINGER ON D.C. LANDLORD-TENANT LAW, Ch. 9, §§ 9.1-9.7 (1988). We have found a few — and only a few — cases suggesting that a month-to-month tenant who breached a covenant other than the obligation to pay rent was entitled to a thirty-day notice to quit. These cases did not refer to the timing of such a notice, but because a statutory predecessor of § 45-1402 was on the books at the time of each decision, presumably the caselaw was referencing these statutory requirements (reflecting the common law), including the timing provisions. See Dunnington v. Thomas E. Jarrell Co.,96 A.2d 274, 275 (D.C. 1953) (because tenant had not used apartment in unlawful manner, court held tenant had not waived notice to quit "and consequently the tenant was entitled to a thirty days' notice"); Hall v. Henry J. Robb, Inc.,32 A.2d 707, 708 (D.C. 1943) (where tenant violated lease provision prohibiting subletting, court noted tenant's written waiver of notice to quit). But see Banks v. Torre, 56 A.2d 52 (D.C. 1947) (in suit for possession, where tenant operated shoe shine parlor on premises limited by lease to use as private dwelling, court sustained directed verdict for landlord with no mention of notice to quit).