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

Scarborough v. Winn Residential L.L.P., 890 A.2d 249 (2006)

Citation
Scarborough v. Winn Residential L.L.P., 890 A.2d 249 (2006)
Parent Document
Scarborough v. Winn Residential L.L.P., 890 A.2d 249 (2006)
Jurisdiction
DC (municipal)
Effective Date
2006-01-12

Other Sections in This Document (93)

Full Text

753 chars
her argument that the notice was insufficient too by not giving her the thirty-day opportunity to correct the violation provided by D.C.Code § 42-3505.01(b). The judge assumed that by its terms this statute requires a notice to correct be given even where eviction is sought for dangerous criminal activity on the premises, but ruled that federal regulations governing Scarborough’s tenancy “superseded” District law in this regard and “precluded” an opportunity to correct or cure in these circumstances. “[I]f there were a right to cure,” the judge explained, “that would effectively gut the import of the federal regulations on this point, namely that endangering health and safety justifies a termination [for a violation] that cannot be cured.” II.