Despite new restrictions, LSC regulations still permit federally-funded
legal services lawyers to continue their representation of individuals
in drug-related eviction cases. Much of the drug problem is caused by tenants
who allow relatives or guests to use their residences for criminal activity.
While new LSC rules prohibit representation of tenants directly charged
with drug offenses, legal services can still represent tenants who knew
about and financially benefited from illegal drug activity as long as they
weren’t specifically charged with the crime.
Tenant Can Not Be Evicted for Husband’s Drug Crime
In a 1994 case, legal services stopped the Sarasota, Florida Housing
Authority from evicting a tenant whose husband had been arrested for cocaine
possession. Gulfcoast Legal Services argued that terminating her Section
8 housing subsidy, which led to eviction proceedings, was improper because
the PHA did not conduct a hearing beforehand (Section 8 payments are distributed
by the Department of Housing and Urban Development to low-income individuals
so they can rent apartments out of their income range). The PHA argued
to no avail that a pretermination hearing was not required when the reason
for termination is drug activity by a member of the tenant’s family.
See Stuber v. Housing Auth. of Sarasota, M.D. Fla., Dec. 12,
1994
Eviction of Tenant for Guest’s Drug Crime Dismissed
The Dade County Public Housing Authority (PHA) sought to evict a tenant
after a guest staying in her apartment was arrested for possession of cocaine.
The guest was chased into the tenant’s apartment by police who had been
observing him on the street outside the residence. Legal services stopped
the eviction on technical grounds that the eviction notice failed to state
a valid reason for such action. In exchange for being allowed to stay in
the apartment, the tenant agreed to “take all reasonable steps” to
notify the PHA if the accused entered her apartment.
See Metropolitan Dade County v. Kendrick, Fla. County Ct., February
10, 1995
Florida Woman Accused of Criminal Activity Wins Eviction Case
The Dade County Housing Authority attempted to evict a tenant for alleged involvement in criminal activity. In one incident, the tenant’s boyfriend who was on housing property with her consent had threatened the building manager. However, Legal Services of Greater Miami stopped the eviction, claiming that the PHA did not state with proper specificity all of the grounds for eviction.
See Metropolitan Dade County v. Jones, Fla. County Ct.,
July 12, 1994
Tenants Accused of Drug Activity Win South Carolina Eviction Case
In 1994, the Housing Authority of Spartanburg, South Carolina was prevented
from evicting two tenants it claimed were allowing illegal drug sales on
housing property. Piedmont Legal Services argued that the individuals could
not be evicted because they were technically not tenants. The individuals
were participating in a special home ownership program in which they could
purchase their homes from the PHA after renting for a period of time. Because
they were seeking to purchase their homes, legal services argued that they
were not tenants and that eviction would be unfair because they could not
recover their investment in the property.
See Housing Authority of Spartanburg, S.C., S.C. Ct., Dec. 13.
1994
Miami Legal Services Prevents Eviction of Accused Drug Criminal
In 1995, Legal Services of Greater Miami stopped the Dade County Public
Housing Authority (PHA) from evicting a tenant arrested for cocaine possession.
Legal services argued that the housing authority could not evict the tenant
because he did not commit the alleged crime near public housing property.
In addition, legal services charged that the PHA did not give the individual
a fair and unbiased grievance proceeding. The PHA agreed to stop the eviction
in exchange for legal services dropping its counterclaim.
See Metropolitan Dade County v. Perez, Fla. County Ct.,
March 1, 1995
Susquehanna Legal Services Stops Eviction of Murderer
In 1995, Susquehanna Legal Services of Pennsylvania stopped the eviction of a tenant arrested for conspiracy to commit murder. After her arrest, the Union County Housing Authority moved to evict her by terminating her Section 8 payments. However, legal services argued that being arrested was insufficient grounds for terminating her subsidy. Although she admitted that her husband was involved in the murder, legal services insisted that a decision to terminate tenancy should be supported by more credible evidence. On appeal, legal services overturned the woman’s eviction on the grounds that it violated the U.S. Housing Act and her 14th Amendment rights. The woman was later “evicted,” however, after she was convicted of participating in the murder with her husband. PHA still had to pay $1500 in attorney fees to Susquehanna.
See Barnhart v. Housing Auth. of Union County, M.D. PA,
February 21, 1995