Cleveland’s LSC Grantee Sues to Prevent Lawful Eviction of Tenant Whose Lease Had Expired
On January 3, 2000, a tenant of the Indian
Hills Senior Community, Inc. in Cleveland, Ohio was notified that her two-year
lease, upon expiration on February 28, would not be renewed. The
tenant declined to respect the terms of her lease and vacate the premises
at its conclusion, as requested. She was again approached on March
1, this time with an eviction notice. Given a one-week deadline,
she again resisted. On March 13, Indian Hills filed a complaint for
eviction in the Euclid Municipal Court. The tenant filed an answer
and counterclaim, alleging that the landlord’s eviction notice was retaliatory
in nature, in light of her previous participation with a tenant organization
that had lodged complaints against the landlord. Legal Aid Society
of Cleveland, a LSC grantee, agreed with the tenant and took her case.
In May, the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court found in favor of Indian
Hills, repudiating Legal Aid’s contention that the eviction was retaliatory
in nature. Legal Aid Society appealed, and the Ohio Eighth Circuit
Court of Appeals upheld the lower court ruling, stating that Indian Hills
“followed the requisite...process” and that the tenant’s claim was “without
merit.”
Source: Indian Hills v. Sanders, No. 787780, 2001 Ohio App.
LEXIS 3717 (Ohio App. 2001)
Legal Aid Program in LA Fights to Require Landlord to Accept Section 8 Housing Vouchers
In response to increased market demands, the
795-unit Lincoln Place apartment complex in Venice, California, announced
in February 2001 that it was initiating renovation plans and removing itself
from the Section 8 housing program. “Clearly, Section 8 is not keeping
pace with the marketplace,” said the owners, in explaining the market pressures
that led them to make the change. One operator cited the federal
government’s tremendous administrative burden associated with the program
and the “delayed payments” as being among the difficulties faced by apartment
complexes that work with Section 8 vouchers. Moreover, Lincoln Place’s
owners contended that the city, contrary to encouraging affordable housing
at Lincoln Place, was making “the operation of this property as difficult
as humanly possible.” As formidable as these challenges were, Lincoln
Place found one if its greatest adversaries to be the Legal Aid Foundation
of Los Angeles. Even though Lincoln Place was well within its legal
rights to extricate itself from the Section 8 housing program, LA’s LSC
grantee went to court, seeking an injunction against the apartment complex.
In July 2001, the judge denied the request for injunction, upholding Lincoln
Place’s legal right to remove itself from the Section 8 program.
The legal wrangling continued through the fall, however, with Lincoln Place
promising $5,000 checks to each of the affected tenants for “moving expenses”
and agreeing to build affordable housing units on a new property.
Source: “Being Forced Out by Low Incomes, Rising Rents,” Los Angeles
Times, September 29, 2001
Cape-Atlantic Legal Services Defends Tenant’s Refusal to Sign Federally-Mandated Drug Policy Addendum
The Housing Authority and Urban Redevelopment
Agency of the City of Atlantic City presented to its tenants an addendum
to their rental contracts. The addendum permitted the Housing Authority
to initiate eviction procedures against any tenant for “any drug-related
criminal activity” committed by “a tenant, any member of the household,
a guest, or another person under the tenant’s control.” This addition
to the contract was required by federal law, bringing the Atlantic City
Housing Authority in compliance with the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable
Housing Act, passed in 1990 (and later amended in 1996). When certain
residents refused to sign the new addendum, the Housing Authority instituted
summary dispossess actions against them. Cape-Atlantic Legal Services,
Inc. sprung to their defense, arguing that the addendum was “unreasonable.”
Incredibly, the Special Civil Part, a lower court, sided with Cape-Atlantic
and the tenants who refused to sign the new lease. The Housing Authority
appealed; and, in December 1999, the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate
Division, ruled in their favor, noting that the trial court “committed
error by refusing to enforce a federally-mandated accountability provision,
and erred by finding the federally-mandated accountability clause unreasonable...”
The court further declared: “Our federal system rests upon a proper and
mutual respect between the federal and state governments. Interference
by the state judiciary with respect to a responsibility conferred upon
a federal agency with presumed expertise in its assigned field would be
inherently abrasive.”
Source: McQueen v. Brown, 342 N.J. Super. 120; 775 A.2d 748
(N.J. Super 2001)