Columbia Hous. & Redevelopment Corp. v. Braden

• Decision Date: 13 October 2022
• Docket Number: M2021-00329-COA-R3-CV
• Parties: COLUMBIA HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT CORP. v. KINSLEY BRADEN
• Court: Tennessee Court of Appeals

COLUMBIA HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT CORP. v. KINSLEY BRADEN

No. M2021-00329-COA-R3-CV

Court of Appeals of Tennessee, Nashville

October 13, 2022

Session January 5, 2022

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Maury County No. 16922 David L Allen, Judge

This is a detainer action brought by a landlord to evict its tenant for possessing a firearm in his apartment in contravention of the lease agreement. The landlord, Columbia Housing &amp Redevelopment Corporation ("Columbia Housing") provides subsidized housing for the City of Columbia pursuant to the Housing Authorities Law, Tennessee Code Annotated § 13-20-101 to -709, and operates Creekside Acres, a multifamily, low-income public housing complex in Columbia, Tennessee. The tenant voluntarily entered into a lease agreement with Columbia Housing that contained a prohibition against firearms on the premises; nevertheless, the tenant defended the detainer action, contending that the lease agreement violated his rights under the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. The circuit court ruled in favor of the landlord on the ground that the lease agreement was a valid and enforceable contract, and the tenant voluntarily waived any rights he may have had to possess a firearm on the leased premises. This appeal followed. Significantly, the landlord is a governmental entity "acting as a landlord of property that it owns." See Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev. v. Rucker, 535 U.S. 125, 135 (2002). As such, its actions must comply with the Constitution, see Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922, 930 (1982), and the unconstitutional conditions doctrine "prevent[s] the government from coercing people into giving" up constitutional rights. Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist., 570 U.S. 595, 604 (2013). Although laws "forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings" do not violate the Second Amendment, see D.C. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 626 (2008), not "all places of public congregation" are "sensitive places." See N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S.Ct. 2111, 2134 (2022). Moreover, although public housing is government-owned, the leased premises at issue is the tenant's private home, which is not the kind of "sensitive place" where the government may categorically ban firearm possession. See id. at 2128. Further, complete prohibitions on possession of handguns in the home for self-defense are "historically unprecedented." See id. Therefore, we hold that Columbia Housing's prohibition against handguns in the tenant's "home" is an unconstitutional lease condition. As a consequence, the tenant's possession of a handgun in his apartment, his home, did not constitute a breach of the lease agreement. Accordingly, the judgment of the circuit court is reversed, and this matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Reversed and Remanded

David G. Sigale, Wheaton, Illinois, and Eugene R. Hallworth, Columbia, Tennessee, for the appellant, Kinsley Braden.

Charles M. Molder and Kori B. Jones, Columbia, Tennessee, for the appellee, Columbia Housing & Redevelopment Corporation.

Frank G. Clement, Jr., P.J., M.S., delivered the opinion of the court, in which Andy D. Bennett and W. Neal McBrayer, JJ joined.

OPINION

FRANK G. CLEMENT JR., P.J., M.S.

Facts and Procedural History

On April 19, 2018, Kinsley Braden signed a lease agreement with Columbia Housing for the privilege of residing at 103 West Willow Street in Creekside Acres. The lease agreement incorporated by reference the Community Housing Rules, which prohibited, inter alia, any resident from possessing a firearm on the premises. In relevant part, the Community Housing Rules read: "No Weapons & Firearms. The possession or use of any type of weapon, firearm, or dangerous object is strictly prohibited within the boundaries of the property."

On November 4, 2020, Columbia Housing learned that Mr. Braden had been keeping a handgun in his residence. As a result, Columbia Housing filed a Detainer Summons against Mr. Braden, seeking to evict him for "violation of the [lease agreement], including violation of Tenn. Code Ann. § 68-28-517."^[1] On November 20, 2020, the general sessions court entered judgment in favor of Columbia Housing. On January 7, 2021, Mr. Braden appealed the general sessions court's ruling, arguing that, as a law-abiding citizen who was otherwise qualified to possess a firearm, the Second Amendment protected his right to possess a firearm in his residence for self-defense purposes.

Following a hearing on February 26, 2021, wherein the material facts were stipulated, the circuit court granted judgment in favor of Columbia Housing.^[2] In making its determination, the court found Tennessee Attorney General Opinion No. 09-170 (October 26, 2009) instructive. The trial court did not include the text of the opinion in its ruling; however, the Attorney General's opinion reads:

Under both case law and the Act, a landlord and tenant are free to establish terms governing the use of the property. Tenn. Code Ann. § 66-28-201(a); Planters Gin. Co. v. Fed. Compress & Warehouse Co., 78 S.W.3d 885, 889- 90 (Tenn. 2002). A landlord and tenant may, therefore, mutually agree through a lease to prohibit the possession of firearms on the premises. Tenn. Code Ann. § 66-28-201(a). Under the Act, a landlord may also prohibit firearms by adopting a rule that satisfies the requirements of Tenn. Code Ann. § 66-28-402(a). It states:

A landlord, from time to time, may adopt rules or regulations, however described, concerning the tenant's use and occupancy of the premises. It is enforceable against the tenant only if: (1) Its purpose is to promote the convenience, safety, or welfare of the tenants in the premises, preserve the landlord's property from abusive use, or make a fair distribution of the services and facilities held out for the tenants generally; (2) It is reasonably related to the purpose for which it is adopted; (3) It applies to all tenants in the premises; (4) It is sufficiently explicit in its prohibition, direction, or limitation of the tenant's conduct to fairly inform the tenant of what the tenant must or must not do to comply; (5) It is not for the purpose of evading the obligation of the landlord; and (6) The tenant has notice of it at the time the tenant enters into the rental agreement.

If the landlord complies with the requirements of Tenn. Code Ann. § 66-28-402(a), and that rule is in effect at the time the lease is executed, then the rule will be enforceable.

Tenn. Op. Att'y Gen. No. 09-170 (Oct. 26, 2009).

After considering the Attorney General's opinion, Tennessee Code Annotated § 66-28-201(a) and -402(a), as well as other relevant authority, the circuit court determined that:

Tennessee Code Annotated § 66-28-201(a) makes clear that a landlord and tenant are free to establish terms governing the use of the property and, therefore, landlords and tenants may mutually agree, through a Lease Agreement, to prohibit the tenant's ability to possess a firearm while on the premises of the landlord's property.

(footnote omitted). The circuit court further reasoned:

Mr. Braden voluntarily waived any rights he may have to possess a firearm on the premises of [Columbia Housing], by agreeing to be bound by the terms of the Lease Agreement (with [Columbia Housing]), under simple contract principles. Kinsley Braden breached the Lease Agreement with [Columbia Housing] due to his admitted possession of a firearm on November 4, 2020, which is strictly prohibited. [Columbia Housing] is entitled to Judgment for eviction.

This appeal by Mr. Braden followed.

Issues

Mr. Braden purports to raise three issues for our consideration on appeal. He contends he should not be evicted from Creekside Acres because (1) Columbia Housing's firearm prohibition violates his Second Amendment right to possess a firearm; (2) Columbia Housing's firearm prohibition violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; and (3) even if the lease agreement does effectively prohibit firearm possession, the agreement itself is an unenforceable adhesion contract. However, only one issue was presented to and decided by the trial court. This is evident from the final judgment entered in the trial court:

Issue for Determination

Mr. Braden, through counsel, raised a constitutional (2nd Amendment) defense to the prohibition as to firearms which is contained within the parties' Lease Agreement which, given that all other matters have been stipulated to, brings the Court to the ultimate issue:

Can [Columbia Housing] prohibit its tenants, in this case Kinsley Braden, from possessing firearms on its properties?

Accordingly, this is the only issue that is properly before this court as the other issues are deemed waived.^[3]

Standard of Review

The material facts are not disputed, and the issue before us presents a question of law. Our review of a trial court's determinations on issues of law is de novo, without any presumption of correctness. See Lind v. Beaman Dodge, Inc., 356 S.W.3d 889, 895 (Tenn. 2011).

Analysis

Mr Braden agreed to be bound by the terms of the lease agreement that incorporated by reference the Community Housing Rules, which prohibit residents from possessing firearms in their residences. Yet, on November 4, 2020, Mr. Braden was in possession of a firearm on the leased premises in violation of the lease agreement. Nevertheless, Mr. Braden contends that Columbia Housing cannot constitutionally prohibit him from possessing a firearm in his residence.

As a threshold matter, we recognize that Columbia Housing is a government entity acting as the landlord of the...