|
|
Eviction Court Rejects "One Strike" Preemption ArgumentThe 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.
Back to this issue's Table of Contents. Back to the Article List. Back to the NHLP Home Page.
|
|