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

Lee v. District of Columbia Board of Appeals & Review, 423 A.2d 210 (1980)

Citation
Lee v. District of Columbia Board of Appeals & Review, 423 A.2d 210 (1980)
Parent Document
Lee v. District of Columbia Board of Appeals & Review, 423 A.2d 210 (1980)
Jurisdiction
DC (municipal)
Effective Date
1980-11-06

Other Sections in This Document (106)

Full Text

1,136 chars
. The record on appeal does not disclose the current status of petitioners’ attempts to resist eviction. It is clear that the Rental Accommodations Office (RAO) issued an order on April 24, 1978, restraining BGM from filing an action for possession based on the March 15 Notice to Vacate; apparently the RAO found some technical flaw in BGM’s Notice to Vacate. It also appears that BGM thereafter sought collateral relief from the RAO order in the Superior Court, rather than pursuing its administrative remedies through the Rental Accommodations Commission. The outcome (or, alternatively, the current status) of the court action is unclear. There is, however, an averment in an advisory memorandum prepared by the Corporation Counsel for the Department of Housing and Community Development indicating that petitioners “were permitted by the Superior Court to continue occupancy notwithstanding landlord eviction notices.” Assuming these facts to be true, we remain in the dark as to whether BGM has issued new notices to vacate which do comply with the statutory requirements, or whether petitioners’ evictions are otherwise imminent.