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

Administrator of Veterans Affairs v. Valentine, 490 A.2d 1165 (1985)

Citation
Administrator of Veterans Affairs v. Valentine, 490 A.2d 1165 (1985)
Parent Document
Administrator of Veterans Affairs v. Valentine, 490 A.2d 1165 (1985)
Jurisdiction
DC (municipal)
Effective Date
1985-04-24

Other Sections in This Document (109)

Full Text

1,138 chars
The VA does not argue that its attempt to evict Valentine is based on any of the reasons permitted by § 45-1561; rather, it contends that § 45-1561 does not apply in the situation before us. In expressing the reasons for our rejection of the VA’s position, we observe first that the Rental Housing Commission, the administrative agency charged with responsibility for interpreting and applying Chapter 15 (Rent Control) of Title 45 of the District of Columbia Code, including § 45-1561, has ruled that foreclosure of a mortgage does not deprive the mortgagor’s tenants of the protection of § 45-1561. Ficke v. Washington Federal Savings and Loan Ass’n, No. T.P. 11,062/NV 14, 621 (May 4, 1984). “In reviewing the construction of a statute by the agency charged with its interpretation and enforcement, the agency’s interpretation is controlling unless it is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the statute.” Totz v. Rental Accommodations Commission, 412 A.2d 44, 46 (D.C.1980) (citation omitted). For the reasons we develop below, we think that the Commission’s interpretation, entirely apart from the deference it is owed, is correct.