Katherine Square Apartments v. Paul
| Citation | 331 So.3d 358 |
| Decision Date | 12 October 2021 |
| Docket Number | 2021 CA 0179 |
| Parties | KATHERINE SQUARE APARTMENTS v. Robbin PAUL |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana (US) |
Terry L. Bonnie, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellant, Robin Paul
BEFORE: GUIDRY, HOLDRIDGE, AND CHUTZ, JJ.
Defendant-appellant, Robbin Paul, appeals the city court judgment issuing a warrant of eviction directing the marshal of the city court to eject her from an apartment located in a housing complex funded by the Rural Development of the United States Department of Agriculture (RD of the USDA) in which she had been residing pursuant to a month-to-month lease with plaintiff-appellee, Katherine Square Apartments (KSA).1 We reverse.
On December 2, 2020, KSA filed a rule in city court to evict Paul, averring "non[-]renewal" as the basis for the eviction and stating that a five-day notice to vacate had been posted on the door of Paul's premises located at 250 N. 14th Street, Apartment #18, in Port Allen, Louisiana. KSA's rule was accompanied by a written notice, dated October 2, 2020, advising Paul that she had until October 31, 2020, the date her lease terminated, to surrender the premises to KSA. Also accompanying the rule was a notice to terminate the lease for lease violations, dated November 18, 2020, in which KSA informed Paul that she was in violation of the lease agreement stating, "Material Noncompliance with the terms of this lease, which includes, but is not limited to the following ... [n]onpayment or repeated late payments of rent." The November 18, 2020 notice indicated that Paul had until November 23, 2020 to vacate the premises or an eviction proceeding would be filed on November 24, 2020. Additionally, the notice set forth, "This complex is funded by RD of USDA; a copy of 7 C.F.R. 3560 .[1]60 ‘Tenant Grievances’ is posted at the site office and was provided to [Paul] at move in." An addendum to the lease noting that the term was month-to-month effective March 1, 2020 and Paul's rent had been adjusted "from zero dollars" to "zero dollars" per month, signed on February 6, 2020 by a KSA representative and Paul, was also filed into the record on December 2, 2020. Lastly, a copy of the lease agreement KSA had entered into with Paul, which commenced on January 1, 2017 and expired on December 31, 2017, accompanied KSA's rule to evict.
On December 11, 2020, Paul filed an opposition to the eviction rule. Paul averred that she was a tenant of public or subsidized housing, KSA had not terminated the lease in conformity with the program rules or federal law, and good cause to evict her did not exist.
The matter proceeded to a hearing on January 12, 2021, after which the city court granted the eviction. Paul timely filed this devolutive appeal.
Louisiana's statutory scheme for eviction is set forth in La. C.C.P. art. 4701 - 4735. The summary action for eviction involves the single issue of whether the owner is entitled to possession of the premises. Soileau v. Knighten , 423 So.2d 61, 62 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1982) ; Monroe Hous. Auth. v. Coleman , 46,307 (La. App. 2d Cir. 5/25/11), 70 So.3d 871, 873.
As a participant in the RD of the USDA, KSA may terminate or refuse to renew Paul's lease only for material non-compliance with the lease provisions, material non-compliance with the occupancy rules, or other good causes. KSA may terminate the lease only when the incidences related to the termination are documented. See 7 C.F.R. 3560.159(a).2 Paul's occupancy in the RD-of-USDA-funded complex may not be terminated by KSA when the lease agreement expires unless Paul's actions meet the conditions of material non-compliance with the lease provisions, material non-compliance with the occupancy rules, or other good causes, or she is no longer eligible for occupancy in the housing. See 7 C.F.R. 3560.159(b).
The November 18, 2020 notice stated that the basis for Paul's eviction was nonpayment of rent or repeated late payments of rent, a basis that could constitute a material non-compliance with the terms of the lease agreement between Paul and KSA or non-compliance with occupancy rules. But according to the February 2, 2020 addendum, Paul's rental obligation was $0 per month. And at the hearing, Amber Turner, KSA's manager, stated that the ground for the termination of the lease agreement was "non-renewal." She specifically testified that the ground was "[n]ot nonpayment, no other reason [than] just non[-]renewal."
The record is devoid of any evidence supporting a finding that Paul was no longer eligible for occupancy in the KSA housing. Moreover, it is undisputed, and the addendum to the lease agreement clearly establishes, that Paul's tenancy was pursuant to KSA's participation in the RD of the USDA. Therefore, KSA was not permitted to terminate the lease solely on the basis of non-renewal. Accordingly, KSA failed to establish that it was entitled to possession of premises.3 Therefore, the city court erred in issuing a warrant of eviction directing the marshal of the city court to eject Paul from the premises at 250 N. 14th Street, Apartment #18, in Port Allen, Louisiana.4
For these reasons, the city court judgment is reversed. Appeal costs are assessed against Katherine Square Apartments.
MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT DENIED AS MOOT. JUDGMENT REVERSED.
While I acknowledge that a devolutive appeal is allowed from a judgment of eviction, I am troubled as to the practical result. What happens if the judgment of eviction is reversed, but the lessee's apartment has been validly leased to another person during the period of the devolutive appeal? It appears that this court would have no legal basis to allow the lessee to occupy (or to be restored in possession) of her former apartment since she failed to take a suspensive appeal. In that case, the eviction proceeding would be moot since the trial court would have no legal authority to grant the lessee possession of her former apartment.
1 The...
To continue reading
Request your trial