Skip to main content
INTERNAL PROTOTYPE — NOT LEGAL ADVICE — DO NOT SEND

Auger v. Tasea Investment Co., 676 A.2d 18 (1996)

Citation
Auger v. Tasea Investment Co., 676 A.2d 18 (1996)
Parent Document
Auger v. Tasea Investment Co., 676 A.2d 18 (1996)
Jurisdiction
DC (municipal)
Effective Date
1996-05-16

Other Sections in This Document (120)

Full Text

557 chars
This notice to quit requirement applies to commercial, as well as residential, tenancies. See Ontell v. Capitol Hill E.W. Ltd., 527 A.2d 1292, 1294 (D.C.1987). As the trial court recognized, “service of a valid notice to quit is a condition precedent to the landlord’s suit for possession.” Moody v. Winchester Management Corp., 321 A.2d 562, 563 (D.C.1974). Tasea, moreover, does not dispute the trial court’s ruling that Auger had the legal right to retain possession of the property until Tasea satisfied the legal requirements for obtaining possession.9