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
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2381535/ayers-v-landow/ ↗

Full Text

1,231 chars

At trial, the tenant argued that since the landlord mailed the copy prior to posting the notice, and not within the three days following the posting, the service was technically insufficient. The landlord defended his service, arguing that § 45-1406 is ambiguous with regard to when the notice must be mailed. The landlord's contention was and is that "within three days" is not a fixed period of three days following posting, but can be read as a point of conclusion  a date by which the mailing must occur, but not precluding the mailing prior to the date of posting. In support of his contention, the landlord relied chiefly on District of Columbia v. Gantt, 558 A.2d 1120, 1122 (D.C.1989), in which this court held that a probate statute barring claims against an estate unless the claim was filed "within 6 months after the date of the first publication of notice of the appointment of a personal representative," D.C.Code § 20-903(a) (1989),[1] did not prevent a person from lodging a claim prior to the appointment of the representative. Instead, the court interpreted "within six months after" to fix a date of six months following publication of notice of that appointment as the date beyond which no claim could be made.

Other Sections in This Document (158)

Full Text