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
490 charsprotection and because Dr. Hill was well aware that his continued possession of the property was in violation of the consent order that had been entered in this case, he cannot, as a matter of law, show that he suffered any injury by his failure to receive formal notice that a writ of restitution had been obtained by G.E. Capital pursuant to Rule 16(a). Therefore, the trial court did not err in granting G.E. Capital’s motion for summary judgment and denying Dr. Hill’s competing motion.