Minneapolis Public Housing Authority v. Lor, C2-97-1756
| Decision Date | 08 April 1999 |
| Docket Number | No. C2-97-1756,C2-97-1756 |
| Citation | 591 N.W.2d 700 |
| Parties | MINNEAPOLIS PUBLIC HOUSING AUTHORITY, Appellant, v. Mai LOR, Respondent. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
A public housing authority has the discretion to initiate an unlawful detainer action against a tenant whose household member has been accused of criminal activity. A trial court shall grant a de novo trial on the issue of whether the lease has been materially breached. The tenant materially breached her lease when three guns used in a drive-by shooting were found in her apartment.
Carol A. Kubic, Kenneth A. Parsons, Minneapolis, MN, Louis N. Smith, Smith Parker P.L.L.P., Minneapolis, MN, for appellant.
Cherie N. Shoquist, Lawrence R. McDonough, Minneapolis, MN, for respondent.
Michael Driscoll, City of St. Paul, St. Paul, MN, for amicus curiae Public Housing Authority of the City of St. Paul.
William F. Maher, Executive Director & Counsel, Housing and Development Law Institute, Washington, DC, for amicus curiae National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials; National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials, Minnesota Chapter, and Housing and Development Law Institute.
Heard, considered, and decided by the court en banc.
O P I N I O N
Appellant Minneapolis Public Housing Authority (MPHA) contends that when a public housing authority brings an unlawful detainer action against one of its tenants on the basis of alleged criminal activity by a household member, trial courts may not consider facts other than whether the tenant actually violated the lease. As the trial court considered the hardship respondent tenant Mai Lor would face in finding a new apartment, MPHA claims that the trial court reached beyond its powers in ruling for Lor. We conclude that the trial court has the power to review unlawful detainer actions de novo to determine whether the lease was materially breached. The trial court did not make findings on whether Lor materially breached her lease but instead considered equitable circumstances in allowing her to retain her apartment. We reverse the trial court and hold, based upon the trial court's record, that Lor materially breached her lease and should be evicted.
Lor signed a six-page lease with MPHA in 1994. The lease contains two provisions relevant to this case. The first provision, in pertinent part, makes a tenant responsible for the actions of members of her household:
8. Obligations of Tenant's Members of Household, Guests and Other Persons Under Tenant's Control
The Tenant agrees to comply with the following rules. The Tenant is also responsible for causing members of the household, guests or another person under Tenant's control to comply with the following rules.
* * * *
B. The Tenant shall not:
* * * *
10) Engage in, or allow members of the household, guests or another person under Tenant's control to engage in any criminal activity that threatens the health, safety, or right to peaceful enjoyment of the public housing premises by other residents and neighbors, or employees of the Management.
The second provision sets out termination grounds for serious lease violations:
10. Termination of Lease
A. Management shall not terminate, refuse to renew the Lease or evict Tenant from the dwelling unit except for serious or repeated violations of material terms of the Lease or other good cause. Serious violations of the Lease include but are not limited to:
* * * *
4) Any criminal activity that threatens the health, safety, or right to peaceful enjoyment of the premises by other tenants, neighbors and public housing employees, or drug-related criminal activity on or near the premises engaged in by a Tenant, a member of the Tenant's household, a guest or another person under Tenant's control while the Tenant is a tenant in public housing.
In the summer of 1997, as a tenant of MPHA, Lor lived with her four youngest children, including her 17-year-old son K.Y. While Lor was out-of-state on June 17, 1997, K.Y. was involved in a drive-by shooting in which three people were shot. The day after the shooting, police found a loaded handgun, a loaded sawed-off shotgun, an unloaded handgun, and a spent shotgun shell in Lor's apartment.
MPHA sent Lor an eviction notice dated June 30, 1997. The notice stated that a serious violation of a material lease term had occurred because a household member had engaged in criminal activity. It also stated that because of the nature of the violation, Lor could not access MPHA's grievance procedure to contest her eviction. Lor did not vacate the apartment but instead retained an attorney and contested her eviction. MPHA filed an unlawful detainer action against Lor on July 10, 1998.
At the bench trial, the parties stipulated that Lor is a single mother currently living with her three minor children, and that Lor's son was involved in a drive-by shooting at another public housing residence while a resident of the contested apartment. The trial court made additional findings including a finding that Lor did not have any knowledge of her son's criminal activity or reason to anticipate her son's acts. It reasoned that eviction would create severe hardship for Lor in light of her limited English and her three minor children. In arriving at its decision not to evict, the trial court focused on whether K.Y.'s criminal conduct gave MPHA "sufficient cause" to terminate the lease, and concluded that "[w]hile a public housing authority has a strong interest in removing criminal and gang activity from a project, some discretion must be exercised and this Court is of the opinion that, under the facts of this case, eviction is not an appropriate remedy." 1
The court of appeals affirmed the trial court, turning to federal statutes to determine the trial court's scope of review of MPHA eviction decisions. 2 The court of appeals stated that court review of public housing authority (PHA) evictions is not "limited to the issue of whether the facts establish a violation of the lease," and allowed the trial court considerable latitude to review equitable circumstances surrounding the eviction. 3 It also noted that as Lor had been barred from MPHA's grievance procedure, trial court review was particularly important to provide adequate due process protections. 4 The court of appeals then concluded that the trial court was not clearly erroneous in barring eviction in light of the hardships Lor would face in securing new housing. 5
The MPHA appealed the court of appeals' decision, and we granted review.
I.
To determine PHA eviction powers and the trial court's scope of review of PHA eviction decisions, we turn to federal and state legislation and regulations. Statutory construction presents a question of law we review de novo. 6
PHAs are subject to substantial federal regulation. The Affordable Housing Act, which Congress passed in 1990, addresses grounds for eviction from public housing and requires that local PHAs use leases that:
provide that any criminal activity that threatens the health, safety, or right to peaceful enjoyment of the premises by other tenants * * * engaged in by a public housing tenant, any member of the tenant's household, or any guest or other person under the tenant's control, shall be cause for termination of tenancy. 7
While the statute does not set forth the role of PHAs or courts in reviewing lease violations, the Housing and Urban Development (HUD) regulations do. 8 Under HUD regulations, PHAs retain the discretion to craft eviction policies that protect other PHA tenants and the larger community while allowing for consideration of individual circumstances. In deciding whether to evict for criminal activities, 9
While PHAs are required to provide a grievance procedure for most tenant disputes, the regulations provide that tenants evicted because their household members have allegedly engaged in criminal activities may be excluded from PHA administrative grievance procedures. 10 Tenants excluded from the grievance procedures retain the right to a court hearing that contains the basic elements of due process as defined by HUD. 11 Required elements of due process in the court hearing are: (1) adequate notice to the tenant; (2) the tenant's right to be represented by counsel; (3) an opportunity for the tenant to refute PHA's evidence including the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses and the right to raise affirmative legal or equitable defenses; and (4) a decision on the merits. 12
Lor argues that the right to the court hearing mandated by federal regulations is a right to a court decision that not only addresses whether the lease was violated, but also takes into consideration equitable factors. 13 To support her argument, Lor points to the Senate Committee Report. She claims that it demonstrates Congress' intent to create an active court role in public housing evictions. The Senate Committee Report states:
This provision [42 U.S.C. § 1437d(l)(5) ] makes criminal activity grounds for eviction of public housing tenants if that action is appropriate in light of all the facts and circumstances.
* * * *
The committee anticipates that each case will be judged on its individual merits and will require the wise exercise of humane judgment by the PHA and the eviction court. For example, eviction would not be the appropriate course if the tenant had no knowledge of the criminal activities of his/her guests or had taken reasonable steps under the circumstances to prevent the activity. 14
While the Committee Report references the eviction court's ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ram Mut. Ins. Co. v. Rohde
...that leases are contracts to which we apply general principles of contract construction. See Minneapolis Pub. Hous. Auth. v. Lor, 591 N.W.2d 700, 704 (Minn.1999) (explaining that “a lease is a form of contract”). The district court therefore should interpret provisions in a lease governing ......
-
Ruucker v. Davis, s. 98-16322
...though lessee neither knew of nor consented to the gambling activity engaged in by sub-lessee); Minnesota Public Hous. Auth. v. Lor, 591 N.W. 2d 700, 704 (1999) ("A lease is a form of contract. Unambiguous contract language must be given its plain and ordinary meaning, and shall be enforced......
-
Hall v. City of Plainview, A19-0606
...no contract exists. Our job is simply to enforce unambiguous contract language "even if the result is harsh." Minneapolis Pub. Hous. Auth. v. Lor , 591 N.W.2d 700, 704 (Minn. 1999).III.Although the employee does not have a contractual right to payment for accrued, unused paid time off, the ......
-
Allan Block Corp. v. E. Dillon & Co.
...Under Minnesota law, absent an ambiguity, contract terms are given their plain and ordinary meaning. See Minneapolis Pub. Hous. Auth. v. Lor, 591 N.W.2d 700, 704 (Minn.1999). Paragraph 10.2 provides for attorney fees and prejudgment interest in actions brought for "collecting any sums due."......
-
Reforming HUD's "one-strike" public housing evictions through tenant participation.
...power to consider the extent of participation by family members and exercise discretion to decide if eviction is inappropriate), rev'd, 591 N.W. 2d 700 (Minn. 1999); Syracuse Hous. Auth. v. Boule, 676 N.Y.S.2d 741, 742 (N.Y. County Ct. 1998), rev'd, No. 1164, 99-183, 1999 WL 784142 (N.Y. Ap......