District of Columbia v. Towers (2021)

Citation: District of Columbia v. Towers (2021)
Parent Document: District of Columbia v. Towers (2021)
Jurisdiction: DC (municipal)
Effective Date: 2021-05-13
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4882760/district-of-columbia-v-towers/ ↗

Full Text

919 chars

Tenants cannot pay into the court registry what they do not have, see Graham
v. Lanier Assocs., 19 A.3d 361, 367 (D.C. 2011) (explaining that the court must
consider “a tenant’s financial straits” in setting a protective order amount), so a
property owner may suffer no loss from the inability to obtain a protective order.
Assuming the tenant has some ability to pay, the amount to be paid is left to the trial
court’s discretion and turns on the consideration of a number of factors, including
                                          15
the existence of any housing code violations reducing the value of the property. See
Bell, 430 F.2d at 484–85; Penny, 565 A.2d at 591. Further, a “protective order does
not dispose finally of the parties’ right to the money paid under it,” Akassy, 891 A.2d
at 308, and there are strict limits on the disbursement of funds paid into the registry
while the case is still pending:

Other Sections in This Document (54)

Full Text