§ 42-3505

Citation: § 42-3505
Parent Document: Reshard v. Stevenson (2022)
Jurisdiction: DC (municipal)
Effective Date: 2022-02-24
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6444934/reshard-v-stevenson/ ↗

Full Text

1,008 chars

15
          Although other judges considering Ms. Reshard’s motions to stay evaluated
Ms. Reshard’s likelihood of success on the merits in some sense, the standard is
different in that context. The relevant question in evaluating a Rule 60(b) motion is
whether the movant presented an “adequate defense.” It is well established that
doing so does not require “a showing as strong as that of ‘likely to succeed.’” Clark
v. Moler, 418 A.2d 1039, 1043 (D.C. 1980).
      16
          Ms. Reshard also asserted as a defense that Ms. Stevenson had waived her
right to demand possession by accepting rent payments for January and February
2018. See Habib v. Thurston, 517 A.2d 1, 6 (D.C. 1985) (noting that a landlord’s
acceptance of rent after expiration of a notice to quit may amount to waiver of the
right to demand possession). The trial court can address the strength of this defense
on remand. To the extent Ms. Reshard’s arguments about improper service might
                                          16

Other Sections in This Document (262)

Full Text