What’s New?
Housing Program
Information:
  Public Housing
  Section 8
     Section 8 Homeownership
  HUD Rental Housing
  Housing Preservation
  Fair Housing
  Rural Housing
    Service
Publications
Congress and Housing
About NHLP
Opportunities at NHLP
Housing Justice Network (HJN)
Thank You
Links
Search

 

Disclaimer

National Housing Law Project
Housing Law Bulletin

Eviction Court Rejects "One Strike" Preemption Argument

The emphasis on strict eviction policies is continuing to produce odd arguments around the country. In a recent case in Connecticut, a housing authority argued that HUD’s "One Strike" brochure1 had preempted the state laws regarding eviction notices.2 The court, fortunately, rejected the argument, characterizing the HUD "One Strike" document as a public relations piece not capable of preempting state law.

The facts were fairly simple. One of the defendant tenant’s household members was arrested for kidnapping, attempted sexual assault and possession of cocaine at the tenant’s apartment. The PHA sent the tenant a notice to quit and then brought the eviction action. The PHA had not sent the tenant a notice (required by state law) before the termination, specifying the violation and the right to cure, if the violation is curable. Under the state statute, the tenancy continues if curable violations are cured within 21 days. If the violation is not curable or is not cured, the landlord can bring an eviction action after 30 days.

In opposition to the tenant’s motion to dismiss for the PHA’s failure to send the pre-termination notice, the PHA filed HUD’s "One Strike" booklet and argued that it conflicted with the state law giving the tenant a right to cure and the right to a 30-day notice of the violation.

The court rejected the argument for essentially three reasons. First, federal preemption of state landlord/tenant law is not the norm. In fact, federal housing law and state landlord tenant law are normally "melded to create a coherent, though at times awkward, process."3 Second, although federal statutes and regulations may preempt state law, public relations documents cannot. Third, there was no conflict between the HUD promotional materials and state law. HUD’s "One Strike" booklet still recognizes that tenants must be provided with notice and a hearing and that the absolute liability clauses must be used judiciously. There is nothing in the booklet suggesting that state procedural requirements are to be affected in any way.

The tenant was represented by David Pels at Greater Hartford Legal Assistance.


  1. HUD, "One Strike and You’re Out," HUD Notice PIH 96-16 (Apr. 12, 1996).
  2. East Hartford Housing Authority v. Birdsong, No. SPH 93695 (Conn. Super. Ct., Housing Sess., Hartford, Memorandum of Decision filed Jan. 8, 1998).
  3. East Hartford Hous. Auth. v. Birdsong, slip op. at 3, citing Jefferson Garden Assocs. v. Greene, 202 Conn. 128, 144 (1987). 


Back to this issue's Table of Contents.
Back to the Article List.
Back to the NHLP Home Page.

Main Office:
National Housing Law Project
614 Grand Ave., Ste. 320
Oakland, CA 94610
510-251-9400
510-451-2300
nhlp@nhlp.org
Washington, DC Office:
1629 K. Street, NW, Suite 600
Washington, DC 20006
202-463-9461
Fax 202-463-9462
Page Copyright © 1999, NHLP
 
 
 

Site designed, maintained,
and hosted by Change Communications.

Main Office:
National Housing Law Project
614 Grand Ave., Ste. 320
Oakland, CA 94610
510-251-9400
Fax 510-451-2300
nhlp@nhlp.org
Washington, DC Office:
1012 Fourteenth Street NW, Suite 610
Washington, D.C. 20005
(202) 347-8775 (202) 347-8776 (FAX)
Page Copyright © 1999-2002  NHLP
Site designed, maintained,