Opinion ID: 2167433
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Claim of Entitlement to a Permanent Stay

Text: The tenant argues that the trial court erred in setting aside the stay and authorizing the issuance of the writ of eviction because he was entitled to have the writ permanently quashed by paying timely the back rent as specified in the consent agreement. The tenant relies upon that portion of the agreement that provides that [i]f the payment of $1931.34 is paid as agreed, on or before September 18, 2001, the writ of eviction entered in this matter shall be permanently quashed. The landlord argues that the agreement also authorized it to file a new writ in the event that the tenant failed to pay the rent on time during the ensuing year. As previously stated, [w]e adhere to the `objective law' of contracts, whereby the written language embodying the terms of an agreement will govern the rights and liabilities of the parties, . . . unless the written language is not susceptible of a clear and definite undertaking, or unless there is fraud, duress or mutual mistake. Capital City Mortgage Corp. v. Habana Vill. Art & Forklore, Inc., 747 A.2d 564, 567 (D.C.2000) (quoting Minmar Builders, Inc. v. Beltway Excavators, Inc., 246 A.2d 784, 786 (D.C.1968) quoting Slice v. Carozza Props., Inc., 215 Md. 357, 137 A.2d 687, 693 (1958)) (other citations omitted). We construe the contract as a whole, giving effect to each of its provisions, where possible. Id. at 569 (citing 1010 Potomac Assocs., supra, 485 A.2d at 205-06); Clyburn v. 1411 K St. Ltd. P'ship, 628 A.2d 1015, 1018 (D.C.1993) (citation omitted). Applying these general principles, we conclude that the provision of the agreement providing for the permanent quashing of the writ of restitution upon payment of $1931.34 by September 18, 2001, even if met, did not relieve the tenant of the remaining obligations he assumed under the agreement or deprive the landlord of any remedies to which it was entitled thereunder. [8] Here, the tenant also agreed to a pay-on-time provision for a period of one year in default of which the landlord would be entitled to judgment, and the tenant gave up the right to seek a further stay of execution of the judgment [9] or to redeem any judgment. [10] These provisions in the parties' agreement must also be given effect. See Clyburn, supra, 628 A.2d at 1018 (stating that [a] contract must be interpreted as a whole[,] and effect given to language in the document limiting a guarantor's liability). While the tenant bargained for the permanent quashing of the initial writ, he also agreed to other terms that could result in the issuance of additional writs. See Super. Ct. L & T R. 16(a) & (d) (respectively covering the issuance of additional or alias writs of restitution and providing for time limits and leave of court to obtain writs). Specifically, the tenant agreed to the one year pay-on-time provision, reserving remedies to the landlord for its breach, including a waiver of his right to seek a stay or redeem any judgment entered based upon his failure to pay his rent timely as hereto agreed. Since the agreement contemplated that the landlord could secure and execute on its judgment if the tenant breached the pay-on-time provision, the stay provision for the initial writ could not foreclose the landlord's right to the issuance of a second writ upon a showing that the tenant breached the agreement. [11]