Sklar v. Hightower, 342 A.2d 57 (1975)
- Citation
- Sklar v. Hightower, 342 A.2d 57 (1975)
- Parent Document
- Sklar v. Hightower, 342 A.2d 57 (1975)
- Jurisdiction
- DC (municipal)
- Effective Date
- 1975-07-16
Other Sections in This Document (16)
- Sklar v. Hightower, 342 A.2d 57 (1975)
- Sklar v. Hightower, 342 A.2d 57 (1975)
- Sklar v. Hightower, 342 A.2d 57 (1975)
- Sklar v. Hightower, 342 A.2d 57 (1975)
- Sklar v. Hightower, 342 A.2d 57 (1975)
- Sklar v. Hightower, 342 A.2d 57 (1975)
- Sklar v. Hightower, 342 A.2d 57 (1975)
- Sklar v. Hightower, 342 A.2d 57 (1975)
- Sklar v. Hightower, 342 A.2d 57 (1975)
- Sklar v. Hightower, 342 A.2d 57 (1975)
- Sklar v. Hightower, 342 A.2d 57 (1975)
- Sklar v. Hightower, 342 A.2d 57 (1975)
- Sklar v. Hightower, 342 A.2d 57 (1975)
- Sklar v. Hightower, 342 A.2d 57 (1975)
- Sklar v. Hightower, 342 A.2d 57 (1975)
- Sklar v. Hightower, 342 A.2d 57 (1975)
Full Text
502 charsThe trial court ruled that the tenant was entitled to the return of her deposit. As to the counterclaim, the court concluded that the tenant did not owe rent for September because the landlords had waived their right to insist upon strict compliance with § 45-902 and were estopped to assert the requirement of 30 days’ written notice. The court found, however, that the tenant’s efforts to return her keys had been “insufficient” and that she therefore was liable for the $30 expended to change locks.