Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Showing 61–80 of 1,731 results

§ 42

Mary Ann Carter v Bea Paget Final Order, No. TP-29517 (D.C. Off. Admin. Hr'gs) DC municipal

proper 30-day notice of rent increase. However, as I have found the rent increase invalid for

§ 42-3502

Benitez v Ogden Gardens et al. Final Order, No. TP-29189 (D.C. Off. Admin. Hr'gs) DC municipal

implemented rent increases in 2005, 2006, and 2007. It follows that these rent increases were

Guerra v. District of Columbia Rental Housing Commission, 501 A.2d 786 (1985)

Guerra v. District of Columbia Rental Housing Commission, 501 A.2d 786 (1985) DC municipal

...She maintained that the April increase was in violation of D.C.Code §§ 45-1524 (permitting a rent ceiling increase only after a vacancy), 45-1519(g) (prohibiting the implementation of a rent increase within 180 days after a prior...

§ 42-3502

Mary Ann Carter v Bea Paget Final Order, No. TP-29517 (D.C. Off. Admin. Hr'gs) DC municipal

increasing Tenant's rent between April 2007 and September 4, 2008. The only rent increase was

§ 42-205

Farmer v Watkis Final Order, No. TP-29045 (D.C. Off. Admin. Hr'gs) DC municipal

a rent increase in August 2007. A prerequisite to the taking of any rent increase is that "[t]he

§ 42-3502

Dorchester House Associates Ltd. Partnership v. District of Columbia Rental Housing Commission, 938 A.2d 696 (2007) DC municipal

877 A.2d at 106 ("There is a fundamental difference, manifest throughout the rent control regulations, between increasing the rent ceiling and increasing the rent”). 9

section 42-3502

Munonye v Hercules Real Estate Svcs. Final Order, No. TP-29164 (D.C. Off. Admin. Hr'gs) DC municipal

thirty (30) day notice of rent increase was not provided before the rent increase became

Parreco v. District of Columbia Rental Housing Commission, 885 A.2d 327 (2005)

Parreco v. District of Columbia Rental Housing Commission, 885 A.2d 327 (2005) DC municipal

The examiner went on to find, moreover, that the rent increase was illegal because the notice of the increase given to the tenant was defective. While acknowledging that the tenant “did not check the category under ‘Complaints Involving Increase in...

Smith v Edwards Final Order, No. TP-28828 (D.C. Off. Admin. Hr'gs)

Smith v Edwards Final Order, No. TP-28828 (D.C. Off. Admin. Hr'gs) DC municipal

4 Because rent ceilings were abolished, effective August 5, 2006, D.C. Official Code § 42- 3502.06(a), the current version of the law authorizes an increase in the actual rent charged, not an increase in the rent ceiling, when...

§ 3502

Michael Joseph Levy & Carmel Partners, Inc. d/b/a Quarry II, LLC v. and District of Columbia Housing Commission, 126 A.3d 684 (2015) DC municipal

treated petitions to increase rent ceilings as petitions to increase rent, which require

§ 42-3502

Parreco v. District of Columbia Rental Housing Commission, 885 A.2d 327 (2005) DC municipal

550 A.2d 51, 52 (D.C.1988) (upholding a single rent increase based on a combination of simultaneous rent ceiling increases).

§ 42

Parreco v. District of Columbia Rental Housing Commission, 885 A.2d 327 (2005) DC municipal

...shall contain a statement of the current rent [and] the increased rent A "rent ceiling adjustment” means an increase in the rent that may be charged, which must be approved by the RHC. See

McKenzie v. McCulloch, 634 A.2d 430 (1993)

McKenzie v. McCulloch, 634 A.2d 430 (1993) DC municipal

...On June 6, 1987, the Rent Administrator granted the petition, and the rent ceiling was increased from $407 to $1098 per month.2 On July 1, 1987, the McCullochs increased McKenzie’s rent to the new ceiling of $1098. McKenzie...

§ 42-3502

Parreco v. District of Columbia Rental Housing Commission, 885 A.2d 327 (2005) DC municipal

D.C.Code § 42-3502.07, and need not fully exploit each new rent ceiling increase immediately, but can increase the rent toward a ceiling in stages, provided the landlord makes the increases no less than 180 days apart, and...

§ 42-3502

Parreco v. District of Columbia Rental Housing Commission, 885 A.2d 327 (2005) DC municipal

877 A.2d 96, 103-04 (D.C.2005) (explaining regulatory requirements, including that landlords must “perfect” rent ceiling adjustments before they may be implemented as rent increases). The Act was enacted by the Council of the District of Columbia...

Drayton v. Poretsky Management, Inc., 462 A.2d 1115 (1983)

Drayton v. Poretsky Management, Inc., 462 A.2d 1115 (1983) DC municipal

right of redemption it had jurisdiction to determine the validity of the rent increases, and held that the June 1, 1979, rent increase was valid, but that the January 1, 1980, increase was invalid.