Case Name: Bernadine M. LILLYCROP, Appellant v. Howard S. KRESGE et al., Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1962-01-11
Citations: 297 F.2d 919
Docket Number: No. 16401
Parties: Bernadine M. LILLYCROP, Appellant v. Howard S. KRESGE et al., Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 297
Pages: 919–919

Head Matter:
Bernadine M. LILLYCROP, Appellant v. Howard S. KRESGE et al., Appellees.
No. 16401.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued Oct. 25,1961.
Decided Jan. 11, 1962.
Mr. Mark P. Friedlander, Washington, D. C., with whom Messrs. Mark P. Fried-lander, Jr., and Blaine P. Friedlander, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellant.
Mr. S. Churchill Elmore, Washington, D. C., for appellees.
Before Wilbuk K. Miller, Chief Judge, and Prettyman and Bazelon, Circuit Jud^es-

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Our appellant, Mrs. Lillycrop, filed suit jn fbe Landlord and Tenant Branch of the Municipal Court for possession of certain premises, alleging that appellees occupjed the premises as her month-to-month tenants and had defaulted in the payment 0f rent. Appellees' answer denied the allegation of default and asserted absolute title to the property. The case was thereupon certified to the District Court, under D.C.Code § 45-914 (1961), for trial on the issue of title.
Upon trial) the District Court found, in substance, that appellees entered into possessjon on April 4,1959, as tenants under an oral month-to-month lease with appellant ag landlord; that) acting in good faith, appellees acquired title to the properfy jn jUne 1959 by purchase at a foreciosure saie occasioned by appellant's default in the payment of notes under a valid second deed of trust which she had executed in November 1958; and that the trustees properly exercised their discretion in delaying settlement date of the foreclosure sale upon appellees' additional deposit payment. The court concluded appellant's suit for possession, filed April 19, 1960, must fail since appellees established that they had theretofore acqUired ownership of the property in fee sjxnple by purchase at the foreclosure sale }n june 1959. Accordingly, the court entered judgment for appellees.
<-)n aPPeíd we dnd n0 err°r.
Affirmed.