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

422 chars
court was correct as a matter of law when it concluded that Dr. Hill received adequate notice to vacate the premises or face eviction when he agreed to the entry of an order of possession in favor of G.E. Capital. Therefore, G.E. argues that the purposes of the notice provision of Rule 16(a) were satisfied with entry of the consent order and that as a matter of law Dr. Hill cannot recover damages for wrongful eviction.