Demuth v. Peta Properpty Mgmt. (2024)

Citation: Demuth v. Peta Properpty Mgmt. (2024)
Parent Document: Demuth v. Peta Properpty Mgmt. (2024)
Jurisdiction: DC (municipal)
Effective Date: 2024-08-15
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10041354/demuth-v-peta-properpty-mgmt/ ↗

Full Text

934 chars

6
         The HCC erred to the extent it treated the inspector as the finder of fact.
While the inspector assigned by DOB is a “critical component of the calendar,” the
inspector’s report only “generally provide[s] the basis for the Court’s assessment of
the existence and abatement of housing code violations.” Case Management Plan
for the Housing Conditions Civil Calendar, supra, §§ I, VII. The inspector acts akin
to a court-appointed expert to aid the court in fulfilling its duty as the finder of fact.
But the HCC noted at the November 17, 2022, hearing that it found the violations
abated and “relie[d] on Inspector Hall as the investigator and the ultimate fact finder
with respect to violations” (emphasis added). Of course, the HCC may have simply
misspoken. To the extent it did not, however, it was error for the HCC to delegate
its authority to the third-party DOB inspector.
                                        13

Other Sections in This Document (285)

Full Text