Case Law Summaries

Morristown Housing Authority v. Harris

• Opinion Date: April 3, 2001
• Real Property Law
• E-Mail

LANDLORD-TENANT; EVICTION; NOTICE—By threatening eviction in numerous earlier notices, but not so acting, a tenant may be confused into believing that later, similar notices could be disregarded; such “confusing signals” may bar an eviction based upon the later notice.

A woman lived in public housing with her six children. She was habitually late in paying her rent and she received numerous notices advising her that the housing authority would terminate her lease unless she paid her rent and arrearages by a given date. Each time, she eventually paid her rent, but her subsequent payments of rent were late. Eventually, the housing authority sought a judgment of possession based on habitual failure to pay rent due and owing after written notice to cease, and substantial violations of the lease agreement after written notice to cease. The tenant appeared in court and entered into a stipulation of settlement with the authority, agreeing to pay delinquent rent in installments and vacate the apartment about two months later. When tenant did not vacate the premises, a judgment of possession was entered. The tenant then obtained an order to show cause, staying her removal. She complained that “once she received the notice of termination of her leasehold, she followed the internal grievance procedure of the housing authority and was afforded an informal conference.” She never received a written summary of the informal conference, and she was not afforded the opportunity to request a more formal hearing. On the return date of the order to show cause, the lower court took notice of two situations. First, the tenant received numerous notices threatening that if she did not pay her rent on time, she would be evicted. At the same time, she was never evicted until she had received many, many similar notices. To the lower court, the housing authority “created confusing signals for the tenant.” In particular, the lower court noted that the tenant had reason to expect that she would get another Notice to Cease, and not a Notice to Quit, when she continued her practice of paying late. Also, federal law provides a specific grievance procedure for tenants of public housing authorities. Under that procedure, “a prerequisite to taking action, such as evicting a tenant from the premises” is following a grievance procedure, including the right to a formal hearing. Inasmuch as the tenant never received a written summary of the results of her informal settlement conference, she never had the opportunity to request a formal hearing. Therefore, when the housing authority, after the informal hearing, took steps to obtain her eviction, it was without power to do so. Citing an earlier New Jersey case, the Appellate Division repeated “[w]e cannot regard the lease termination notice failures here as technical noncompliance with federal regulations. We view those failures as substantive noncompliance prejudicial to the tenant.” Consequently, the lower court that issued the original order of possession was without jurisdiction to do so and tenant was entitled to remain in her apartment.

Copyright ©2003. Meislik & Meislik. All rights reserved.