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

1,036 chars
Recent caselaw confirms this analysis. In Pritch v. Henry,543 A.2d 808 (D.C. 1988), we considered a timing-of-notice problem in a possessory action based on alleged nonpayment of rent. We held not only that § 45-2551(b) itself required a thirty-day notice to cure or vacate but also — without even a reference to § 45-1402 — that the cure period "will expire, not thirty days after the notice is received, but rather on the first day of the rental period immediately following the lapse of the thirty day notice period which commences on receipt of the notice." Id. at 812. Thus, for nonpayment cases, we incorporated the timing requirement of § 45-1402 into § 45-2551(b) — and explained why that was necessary — without relying on § 45-1402 itself. We suggested in dicta, however, that in a case where the tenant had violated a lease obligation other than the obligation to pay rent, this timing restriction would not apply. See id. at 811-12. The lease in Pritch
prohibited use of the premises for any nonresidential purpose. We said: