Clark v. Bridges, 75 A.3d 149 (2013)
- Citation
- Clark v. Bridges, 75 A.3d 149 (2013)
- Parent Document
- Clark v. Bridges, 75 A.3d 149 (2013)
- Jurisdiction
- DC (municipal)
- Effective Date
- 2013-08-22
- Original Source
- https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5147069/clark-v-bridges/ ↗
Other Sections in This Document (34)
- Clark v. Bridges, 75 A.3d 149 (2013)
- Clark v. Bridges, 75 A.3d 149 (2013)
- Clark v. Bridges, 75 A.3d 149 (2013)
- Clark v. Bridges, 75 A.3d 149 (2013)
- Clark v. Bridges, 75 A.3d 149 (2013)
- Clark v. Bridges, 75 A.3d 149 (2013)
- Clark v. Bridges, 75 A.3d 149 (2013)
- Clark v. Bridges, 75 A.3d 149 (2013)
- Clark v. Bridges, 75 A.3d 149 (2013)
- Clark v. Bridges, 75 A.3d 149 (2013)
- Clark v. Bridges, 75 A.3d 149 (2013)
- Clark v. Bridges, 75 A.3d 149 (2013)
- Clark v. Bridges, 75 A.3d 149 (2013)
- Clark v. Bridges, 75 A.3d 149 (2013)
- Clark v. Bridges, 75 A.3d 149 (2013)
- Clark v. Bridges, 75 A.3d 149 (2013)
- Clark v. Bridges, 75 A.3d 149 (2013)
- Clark v. Bridges, 75 A.3d 149 (2013)
- Clark v. Bridges, 75 A.3d 149 (2013)
- Clark v. Bridges, 75 A.3d 149 (2013)
- Clark v. Bridges, 75 A.3d 149 (2013)
- Clark v. Bridges, 75 A.3d 149 (2013)
- Clark v. Bridges, 75 A.3d 149 (2013)
- Clark v. Bridges, 75 A.3d 149 (2013)
- Clark v. Bridges, 75 A.3d 149 (2013)
- Clark v. Bridges, 75 A.3d 149 (2013)
- Clark v. Bridges, 75 A.3d 149 (2013)
- Clark v. Bridges, 75 A.3d 149 (2013)
- Clark v. Bridges, 75 A.3d 149 (2013)
- Clark v. Bridges, 75 A.3d 149 (2013)
- Clark v. Bridges, 75 A.3d 149 (2013)
- Clark v. Bridges, 75 A.3d 149 (2013)
- Clark v. Bridges, 75 A.3d 149 (2013)
- Clark v. Bridges, 75 A.3d 149 (2013)
Full Text
858 charsFirst, contrary to the landlord’s assertions, the trial court did not misapprehend the relevant time period at issue in this case, which is established by the combined application of 14 DCMR § 4301.4 (2012) (only violations of a lease occurring within a six-month period preceding the notice of eviction may be grounds for eviction) and D.C.Code § 42-3505.01(b) (2001) (eviction may occur only if tenant has not cured the lease violation within thirty days of notice of eviction). As a result, the landlord had to prove that the claimed violations of the lease occurred during the six-month period that preceded October 5, 2010, when notice of eviction was given, and that those violations went uncured for thirty days after that date. We see no errors in the trial court’s pretrial rulings related to the timing of any of the events at issue in this case.10