Sklar v. Hightower, 342 A.2d 57 (1975)
- Citation
- Sklar v. Hightower, 342 A.2d 57 (1975)
- Parent Document
- Sklar v. Hightower, 342 A.2d 57 (1975)
- Jurisdiction
- DC (municipal)
- Effective Date
- 1975-07-16
Other Sections in This Document (16)
- Sklar v. Hightower, 342 A.2d 57 (1975)
- Sklar v. Hightower, 342 A.2d 57 (1975)
- Sklar v. Hightower, 342 A.2d 57 (1975)
- Sklar v. Hightower, 342 A.2d 57 (1975)
- Sklar v. Hightower, 342 A.2d 57 (1975)
- Sklar v. Hightower, 342 A.2d 57 (1975)
- Sklar v. Hightower, 342 A.2d 57 (1975)
- Sklar v. Hightower, 342 A.2d 57 (1975)
- Sklar v. Hightower, 342 A.2d 57 (1975)
- Sklar v. Hightower, 342 A.2d 57 (1975)
- Sklar v. Hightower, 342 A.2d 57 (1975)
- Sklar v. Hightower, 342 A.2d 57 (1975)
- Sklar v. Hightower, 342 A.2d 57 (1975)
- Sklar v. Hightower, 342 A.2d 57 (1975)
- Sklar v. Hightower, 342 A.2d 57 (1975)
- Sklar v. Hightower, 342 A.2d 57 (1975)
Full Text
781 charsUnder the circumstances, it was proper for the trial court to conclude that conduct constituting a waiver of the 30 days’ wit-ten notice requirement had occurred, and that the landlords thereby were estopped to rely on the statute in their effort to collect an additional month’s rent. The landlords orally informed the tenant that she must vacate by September 1, a date less than 30 days in the future, unless she agreed to a rent increase. That in effect was an attempted notice to quit by the landlords (with the tenant being given the option of staying and paying a higher rent), which itself did not comply with § 45-902 because it was not written and it did not furnish the full 30 days’ notice. See Klein v. Miles, D.C.Mun.App., 35 A.2d 243, 245 (1944); Merritt v. Thompson,