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

505 chars
Dr. Hill’s entire argument is premised on the assumption that the purpose of the notice requirement of Rule 16(a) is to provide persons facing eviction with an opportunity to vacate the premises they are no longer entitled to possess before the United States Marshal takes steps to evict them. Dr. Hill, however, has not provided us with any legal support for this proposition beyond his mere surmise and our research has failed to reveal any legal support for such a conclusion. Rule 16(a) provides that: