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

Luskey v. BORGER MANAGEMENT INC., 917 A.2d 631 (2007)

Citation
Luskey v. BORGER MANAGEMENT INC., 917 A.2d 631 (2007)
Parent Document
Luskey v. BORGER MANAGEMENT INC., 917 A.2d 631 (2007)
Jurisdiction
DC (municipal)
Effective Date
2007-02-15

Full Text

654 chars
Without doubt, the landlord never served the required, detailed notice on the tenant, and thus his alternative theory of recovery, underlying the trial court’s judgment, fails in defense of the tenant’s wrongful eviction action. See Mendes v. Johnson, 389 A.2d 781, 787 (D.C.1978) (en banc) (“A tenant has a right not to have his or her possession interfered with except by lawful process, and violation of that right gives rise to a cause of action in tort.”) overruled in separate part by Davis v. Moore, 772 A.2d 204, 209 (D.C.2001) (en banc). Reversed and remanded. --- 030concurrence by Schwelb --- SCHWELB, Senior Judge,
concurring in the judgment: