Clay v. Green
This text of 404 A.2d 959 (Clay v. Green) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District of Columbia Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The appellant seeks reinstatement of her suit for possession and for rent due. The issues presented to this court are whether the appellee-tenant had waived her right to notice to quit and whether the appellant has standing to maintain the suit. As the appellee has vacated the premises, the notice issue is moot. We hold that the appellant had standing and remand for a determination on the rent issue.
In so doing, we reject the appellee’s contention that the appellant lacks standing to sue for possession because she is an unlicensed broker and therefore, under D.C. Code 1973, § 45-1407, may not maintain a suit for rent or possession.1 The appellant, who rented the premises to the appellee, is the mother of the owner and manages the premises without compensation. Because she acts gratuitously, she is not a “broker” within the meaning of § 45-1407.2 Therefore, the appellee’s contention is meritless.
The case is remanded for a determination on the rent issue; certain funds remain in the registry of the court.3
Remanded.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
404 A.2d 959, 1979 D.C. App. LEXIS 436, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clay-v-green-dc-1979.