Tippett v. Daly, 10 A.3d 1123 (2010)
- Citation
- Tippett v. Daly, 10 A.3d 1123 (2010)
- Parent Document
- Tippett v. Daly, 10 A.3d 1123 (2010)
- Jurisdiction
- DC (municipal)
- Effective Date
- 2010-12-30
- Original Source
- https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2551230/tippett-v-daly/ ↗
Other Sections in This Document (168)
- Tippett v. Daly, 10 A.3d 1123 (2010)
- Tippett v. Daly, 10 A.3d 1123 (2010)
- Tippett v. Daly, 10 A.3d 1123 (2010)
- Tippett v. Daly, 10 A.3d 1123 (2010)
- Tippett v. Daly, 10 A.3d 1123 (2010)
- Tippett v. Daly, 10 A.3d 1123 (2010)
- Tippett v. Daly, 10 A.3d 1123 (2010)
- Tippett v. Daly, 10 A.3d 1123 (2010)
- Tippett v. Daly, 10 A.3d 1123 (2010)
- Tippett v. Daly, 10 A.3d 1123 (2010)
- Tippett v. Daly, 10 A.3d 1123 (2010)
- Tippett v. Daly, 10 A.3d 1123 (2010)
- Tippett v. Daly, 10 A.3d 1123 (2010)
- Tippett v. Daly, 10 A.3d 1123 (2010)
- Tippett v. Daly, 10 A.3d 1123 (2010)
- Tippett v. Daly, 10 A.3d 1123 (2010)
- Tippett v. Daly, 10 A.3d 1123 (2010)
- Tippett v. Daly, 10 A.3d 1123 (2010)
- Tippett v. Daly, 10 A.3d 1123 (2010)
- Tippett v. Daly, 10 A.3d 1123 (2010)
- Tippett v. Daly, 10 A.3d 1123 (2010)
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
Full Text
827 charsThe revocable trust of James Tippett owns a single-family dwelling which Gregory Daly (“the tenant”) has rented for more than thirty years. On April 28, 2001, pursuant to TOPA, see D.C.Code § 42-3404.03 (2001), the owner mailed an offer of sale which the tenant received on April 30. The tenant testified that he mailed a statement of interest to the owner on May 18 and filed a copy with the Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs (“DCRA”) the same day. The owner testified, however, that he did not receive the statement of interest until June 2.3 On July 27, 2001, the tenant and his partner placed $20,000 in escrow as a “purchase contract deposit” and on July 30 the tenant hand-delivered a purchase contract to the owner. The owner did not sign the contract and the deposit remained in escrow at the time of trial.