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
Other Sections in This Document (21)
- Hill v. G.E. Capital Mortgage Services, Inc., 859 A.2d 1055 (2004)
- Hill v. G.E. Capital Mortgage Services, Inc., 859 A.2d 1055 (2004)
- Hill v. G.E. Capital Mortgage Services, Inc., 859 A.2d 1055 (2004)
- Hill v. G.E. Capital Mortgage Services, Inc., 859 A.2d 1055 (2004)
- Hill v. G.E. Capital Mortgage Services, Inc., 859 A.2d 1055 (2004)
- Hill v. G.E. Capital Mortgage Services, Inc., 859 A.2d 1055 (2004)
- Hill v. G.E. Capital Mortgage Services, Inc., 859 A.2d 1055 (2004)
- Hill v. G.E. Capital Mortgage Services, Inc., 859 A.2d 1055 (2004)
- Hill v. G.E. Capital Mortgage Services, Inc., 859 A.2d 1055 (2004)
- Hill v. G.E. Capital Mortgage Services, Inc., 859 A.2d 1055 (2004)
- Hill v. G.E. Capital Mortgage Services, Inc., 859 A.2d 1055 (2004)
- Hill v. G.E. Capital Mortgage Services, Inc., 859 A.2d 1055 (2004)
- Hill v. G.E. Capital Mortgage Services, Inc., 859 A.2d 1055 (2004)
- Hill v. G.E. Capital Mortgage Services, Inc., 859 A.2d 1055 (2004)
- Hill v. G.E. Capital Mortgage Services, Inc., 859 A.2d 1055 (2004)
- Hill v. G.E. Capital Mortgage Services, Inc., 859 A.2d 1055 (2004)
- Hill v. G.E. Capital Mortgage Services, Inc., 859 A.2d 1055 (2004)
- Hill v. G.E. Capital Mortgage Services, Inc., 859 A.2d 1055 (2004)
- Hill v. G.E. Capital Mortgage Services, Inc., 859 A.2d 1055 (2004)
- Hill v. G.E. Capital Mortgage Services, Inc., 859 A.2d 1055 (2004)
- Hill v. G.E. Capital Mortgage Services, Inc., 859 A.2d 1055 (2004)
Full Text
567 chars54 A.2d 144, 146 (D.C.1947)). Therefore, even had Dr. Hill received formal notice that a writ of restitution had been obtained by G.E. pursuant to Rule 16(a), the notice would not have served the purpose for which it was intended. He could not have avoided eviction at the time the writ was issued because he was not a tenant who could redeem his tenancy by satisfying a money judgment for back rent and, therefore, he was not entitled to protections afforded renters under our decision in Trans Lux, 54 A.2d at 146. See also Simpson v. Jack Spicer Real Estate, Inc.,