Legal Opinion
Pajic v. Foote Properties, LLC
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided July 25, 2013No. 11-CV-1189PublishedCited by 29 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
EASTERLY, Associate Judge:
With this opinion, we restate what is already the law in the District of Columbia: Landlords may not include a provision in a lease that requires a tenant to pay *143court costs or legal fees. Pursuant to District of Columbia municipal regulation, any such provision is void from the outset and unenforceable. Accordingly, the landlord in this case, Foote Properties, acted illegally when it included a fee-shifting provision in Mr. Pajic’s lease, and it was error for the trial court to rely on this provision to award Foote Properties almost $45,000 in attorneys’ fees in an…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Fleischmann Distilling Corp. v. Maier Brewing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Romer v. District of ColumbiaDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1982
- Williams v. GerstenfeldDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1986
- Williams v. District of ColumbiaDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2010
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by29 opinions
- IN RE TA.L. IN RE A.L. IN PETITION OF R.W. & A.W. IN RE PETITION OF E.A.A.H. AND T.L.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2016
- DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. MELVERN REIDDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2014
- DIONNE SMITH v. GREENWAY APARTMENTS LPT/A MEADOW GREEN COURTSDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2016
- TURQUOISE WYLIE v. GLENNCREST.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2016
- Massey v. MasseyDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2019
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.