Nos. 08-CV-16, 08-CV-1281, 09-CV-427, 09-CV-428
District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
Argued November 19, 2010.
Decided December 2, 2010.
We recognize the “hypertechnical” nature of this regulation and understand that no administrative action was instituted against ESB for its late notification. Nevertheless, we are persuaded that our strict adherence to statutory notice procedures compels a similar result when applying RHC regulations that affect eviction proceedings. See Ayers, 666 A.2d at 52 (strictly construing “hypertechnical” service of process statutory provisions). Therefore, because ESB’s Notice to Quit or Vacate was defective, we reverse the judgment for possession.
The trial court erred when it ordered the removal of Banks’ lis pendens notice. We therefore reverse its order.
[ipaper docId=44596744 access_key=key-150wctvudvztwsrbx0e4 height=600 width=600 /]© 2010-17 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.