District of Columbia v. Towers (2021)

Citation: District of Columbia v. Towers (2021)
Parent Document: District of Columbia v. Towers (2021)
Jurisdiction: DC (municipal)
Effective Date: 2021-05-13
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4882760/district-of-columbia-v-towers/ ↗

Full Text

1,342 chars

The landlords also argue that they will be harmed by a stay because, if they
cannot initiate a suit for possession, they cannot ask the court to direct a tenant, via
a protective order or undertaking order, to make payments into the court registry
during the pendency of that litigation. See Penny v. Penny, 565 A.2d 587, 591 (D.C.
1989). Such orders are generally not issued in cases where a property owner seeks
a judgment of possession for reasons besides nonpayment of rent, as the trial court
acknowledged, because of the unfair burden it places on tenants’ ability to defend
their right to remain in their homes. See Super. Ct. L&T R. 12-I (a)(1)(C) (imposing
special limits on the issuance of protective orders in nonpayment of rent cases); see
also Bell v. Tsintolas Realty Co., 430 F.2d 474, 479–80 (D.C. Cir. 1970) (explaining
that requiring tenants to provide security to landlords pending litigation is contrary
to “the ordinary processes of civil litigation, in which, as a general rule, the plaintiff
has no advance assurance of the solvency of the defendant”). But even for the
relevant subset of property owners seeking a judgment of possession entitled to a
protective order, an order to pay money into the court registry does not translate into
timely payment of the full monthly dollar value property owners assert is owed.

Other Sections in This Document (54)

Full Text