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

Ayers v. Landow, 666 A.2d 51 (1995)

Citation
Ayers v. Landow, 666 A.2d 51 (1995)
Parent Document
Ayers v. Landow, 666 A.2d 51 (1995)
Jurisdiction
DC (municipal)
Effective Date
1995-10-02

Other Sections in This Document (158)

Full Text

948 chars
It is true, as the trial court and majority opinions explain, that landlord-tenant disputes should be adjudicated with attention given to technical compliance with the various procedural statutes that control the eviction process. See Moody v. Winchester Management Corp., 321 A.2d 562, 564 (D.C. 1974). There is no reason why we should, however, sacrifice a common-sense and constitutional interpretation of the notice statute *61to exalt hyper-technicality where it is not compelled by the statutory language and where no claim is made of a failure of actual notice. Indeed, this court has had occasion to rule that actual notice may, in some instances, prevail over technical compliance if the two are in conflict. See, e.g., Frank Emmet Real Estate, Inc., supra, 562 A.2d at 136-87; see also Ontell v. Capitol Hill E.W. Ltd., 527 A.2d 1292, 1295-96 (D.C.1987) (upholding notice as adequate despite failure technically to comply with § 45-1406).