Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Hill v. G.E. Capital Mortgage Services, Inc., 859 A.2d 1055 (2004)

Citation
Hill v. G.E. Capital Mortgage Services, Inc., 859 A.2d 1055 (2004)
Parent Document
Hill v. G.E. Capital Mortgage Services, Inc., 859 A.2d 1055 (2004)
Jurisdiction
DC (municipal)
Effective Date
2004-09-10

Full Text

346 chars
tion. Dr. Hill contends that the trial court erred in its ruling on the competing motions for summary judgment because the trial court erroneously concluded that the notice provision of Super Ct. L & T R. 16(a) (“Rule 16(a)”) was satisfied by Dr. Hill’s prior consent to the entry of an order of possession in favor of G.E. Capital. We affirm. I.