Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Harkins v. Win Corp., 771 A.2d 1025 (2001)

Citation
Harkins v. Win Corp., 771 A.2d 1025 (2001)
Parent Document
Harkins v. Win Corp., 771 A.2d 1025 (2001)
Jurisdiction
DC (municipal)
Effective Date
2001-04-26

Other Sections in This Document (57)

Full Text

793 chars
do not advance Harkins’s argument any further than the first two. The equitable defenses available to tenants are applicable to roomers, at most, in a limited degree. A roomer does not have an equivalent need for the equitable defenses that a tenant may have when committed to a long-term lease, since the roomer generally has less of a need to remain in possession of a particular accommodation while engaging in litigation. Moreover, Harkins has not explained how any of those equitable defenses would apply in this particular case. Lastly, the parties have not cited, and our research has not revealed, any precedent which squarely supports appellant’s contentions in this latter regard. In light of the foregoing, the general policy grounds invoked in Mendes have limited application here.