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

748 chars
The landlord does not claim res judicata (claim preclusion) based on the tenant's decision not to appeal the judgment of possession, and thus we do not address that issue. We review on the merits and agree with the tenant. When one is sued for lease violation A, and that matter is settled before trial, one cannot be tried for lease violation B — without a complaint filed and notice served spelling it out — simply because lease violation B may exist. The landlord and trial court, however, believed that the tenant, who had been sued repeatedly for back rent, was on notice of his breach of the covenant to pay rent in advance and when due, and that the complaint for March rent (apparently implicitly) embraced that broader, alternative theory.