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

Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)

Citation
Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
Parent Document
Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
Jurisdiction
DC (municipal)
Effective Date
1992-05-12

Full Text

922 chars
A.
It is important, first, to note the common law origins of § 45-1402 and how rent control legislation has affected that statute. At common law, either party could terminate a periodic (e.g., month-to-month) tenancy, without claiming a breach of the lease, merely by giving adequate notice. More specifically, under the common law, "notice a full period in advance of the end of a period was required." 1 A. JAMES CASNER, ET AL. AMERICAN LAW OF PROPERTY § 3.23 at 222 (1952); see id. § 3.90 at 377. In keeping with the common law, Congress in 1901 enacted the predecessor of the present § 45-1402, codifying for the District of Columbia the requirement that the 30-day notice required for terminating a month-to-month or quarter-to-quarter tenancy must expire "on the day of the month from which such tenancy commenced to run." Act of Mar. 3, 1901, ch. 854, § 1219, 31 Stat. 1382 (establishing District of Columbia Code).