Spingarn v. Landow & Co., 7741.
| Decision Date | 16 July 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 7741.,7741. |
| Parties | Stephen J. SPINGARN, Appellant, v. LANDOW & CO., Appellee. |
| Court | D.C. Court of Appeals |
Lawrence Sperling, Silver Spring, Md., with whom Saul M. Schwartzbach and David M. Wortman, Washington, D. C., were on the brief for appellee.
Before REILLY, Chief Judge, and FICKLING and GALLAGHER, Associate Judges.
This is an appeal from a judgment of eviction. At trial Landow & Co., the landlord, sought possession of the premises occupied by Spingarn, the tenant, after expiration of the lease and after Spingarn had been given 60 days' notice of the landlord's intention not to renew. Because the landlord sold the apartment building during the pendency of this appeal, we hold that this case is moot and, thus, we do not reach the merits.
The tenant lived at the Colonnade apartment complex on New Mexico Avenue and, in April 1970, signed a two-year standard form lease which contained no self-extension or renewal clause. In March 1972 the landlord informed the tenant that his lease would not be renewed. The tenant refused to vacate the premises and remained there without a lease until July 1972. At that time the landlord and the tenant entered into another lease, but this one was for one year only. In April 1973 the landlord again gave the tenant notice that his lease would not be renewed and, again, the tenant refused to vacate when the lease expired. This time, however, the landlord began these proceedings to remove the tenant.
At trial the tenant, by way of a defense, charged that the landlord refused to renew the lease in retaliation for the tenant's having exercised a constitutional right. The trial court rejected the tenant's defense and, in ordering the tenant evicted, stated:
I have nothing before me, not one scintilla of evidence, that goes to retaliatory actions on the part of Mr. Landow toward you [the tenant] in exercising a constitutional right.
After this court refused to stay the trial court's order evicting the tenant, he vacated the premises. In addition, pending this appeal the landlord sold this apartment building and, consequently, no longer has any proprietary interest therein.
The landlord argues that since he no longer owns the property, the case is moot. We agree.
It is clear that appellate courts will not decide abstract questions or decide...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Waterbury Hospital v. Connecticut Health Care Associates
...case to become moot. See, e.g., Heitmuller v. Stokes, 256 U.S. 359, 362-63, 41 S.Ct. 522, 523-24, 65 L.Ed. 990 (1921); Spingarn v. Landow & Co., 342 A.2d 41 (D.C.App.1975); Nader v. Altermatt, 166 Conn. 43, 56, 347 A.2d 89 (1974). "A case becomes moot when due to intervening circumstances a......
-
Thorn v. Walker, No. 05-CV-99.
...Moreover, there is no justiciable controversy if the court is asked to decide only abstract or academic issues. See Spingarn v. Landow & Co., 342 A.2d 41, 42 (D.C.1975) ("appellate courts will not decide abstract questions . . . ."); see also Not in Montana: Citizens Against CI-97 v. Montan......