Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
King v. Jones
Citations: 647 A.2d 64; 1994 D.C. App. LEXIS 146; 1994 WL 486599Docket: No. 91-CV-416
Court: District of Columbia Court of Appeals; September 1, 1994; District Of Columbia; State Supreme Court
King, a former tenant, appeals a judgment favoring his landlord, Jones, who obtained possession due to King’s noncompliance with a protective order mandating monthly court payments of $475. King contends that the notice to cure or vacate was defective, lacking necessary information as required by statute and regulation for eviction notices not based on rent nonpayment. Jones countered by providing the lease, demonstrating that the tenancy was commercial and thus exempt from the notice provisions of the Rental Housing Act. The court noted that the trial court was not required to resolve factual disputes regarding King’s claims of residential use since Jones's submission of the commercial lease sufficiently established exemption from the notice requirements. The ruling emphasized that King’s failure to make protective order payments warranted the sanctions imposed, including striking his pleadings and granting possession to Jones. The court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no error in the sanctioning authority exercised. Additional defects alleged by King regarding service of notice or Jones's authority to sue were not considered, as they were not raised in the trial court. The notice provisions of the relevant Act pertain specifically to "rental units," defined as housing accommodations rented or offered for residential occupancy. The issuance of landlord and tenant protective orders occurs through a distinct equitable proceeding aimed at preventing significant disadvantages to either party during litigation. This process focuses on prospective rights during the litigation, unlike possessory actions that involve retrospective considerations. Additionally, actual use and occupancy of a unit as a residence, even under a commercial lease, can subject that unit to rent control. Factors influencing this include the tenant's degree of noncompliance and the reasons behind it.