BCJ Mgmt, L.P. v. S.D. Cotton
BCJ Mgmt, L.P. v. S.D. Cotton - 1168 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Jul 10, 2017Background
- Tenant Stacie D. Cotton leased a unit at Oak Hill Apartments (public housing) from BCJ Management, L.P.; landlord sued in magisterial court for lease violations (non-rent).
- Parties settled via arbitration; a written Settlement (incorporated into a consent order) prohibited alcohol abuse that "affects the health, safety or right to peaceful enjoyment" of other tenants.
- After a May 2016 altercation involving Tenant (intoxication, hitting other residents, profanity, lunging, and needing restraint by officers), landlord moved to find Tenant in default of the Settlement and obtain possession.
- At a post-settlement evidentiary hearing, police and a resident testified about Tenant’s intoxication and disruptive conduct; Tenant did not dispute intoxication or involvement but argued she did not “cause” the incident.
- Trial court found Tenant breached the Settlement and ordered eviction; post-trial relief was denied and Tenant appealed. Court of Appeals denied emergency stay; this Court affirmed the trial court’s order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Cotton) | Defendant's Argument (BCJ) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Tenant breached Settlement language prohibiting alcohol abuse that "affects the health, safety or right to peaceful enjoyment" of other tenants | Cotton: neither her intoxication nor the incident alone is sufficient; Landlord must prove she caused the incident and that her conduct affected others | BCJ: Settlement prohibits alcohol abuse that affects others' peaceful enjoyment; Tenant’s intoxicated, violent conduct satisfies the terms regardless of whether she solely caused the incident | Held: Breach established. Two elements required: (1) abuse of alcohol; (2) that abuse affects health, safety, or peaceful enjoyment. Tenant’s intoxication and disruptive conduct met both; causation by Tenant was not required |
| Whether appeal is moot because Tenant was evicted | Cotton: appeal necessary to prevent future detriment (loss of housing assistance eligibility) | BCJ: eviction moots the appeal | Held: Not moot. Third mootness exception applies because eviction could cause detriment (loss of federally assisted housing eligibility) |
| Proper standard for interpreting the Settlement (consent decree) | Cotton: contends restrictive reading requiring causation | BCJ: Settlement should be read according to plain meaning and HUD-standard language | Held: Contract/consent-decree principles apply; plain meaning controls. Settlement unambiguous and interpreted to require only abuse + effect on others' peaceful enjoyment |
| Whether self-defense/provocation negates breach | Cotton: involvement may have been defensive or provoked | BCJ: Settlement contains no exception; disruptive conduct while intoxicated suffices | Held: Provocation/self-defense irrelevant to breach; Settlement contains no carve-out, so misconduct while intoxicated breaches the agreement |
Key Cases Cited
- Powell v. Housing Auth. of Pittsburgh, 812 A.2d 1201 (Pa. 2002) (HUD-regulated lease termination for violent conduct consistent with Housing Act aims)
- Commonwealth ex rel. Kane v. UPMC, 129 A.3d 441 (Pa. 2015) (consent decrees are contracts and interpreted by contract law principles)
- Lesko v. Frankford Hosp.–Bucks Cnty., 15 A.3d 337 (Pa. 2011) (cardinal rule: ascertain contracting parties’ intent)
- Kripp v. Kripp, 849 A.2d 1159 (Pa. 2004) (clear, unambiguous contract terms control)
- Murphy v. Duquesne Univ. of the Holy Ghost, 777 A.2d 418 (Pa. 2001) (extrinsic evidence may be considered when contract is ambiguous)
- Pilchesky v. Lackawanna County, 88 A.3d 954 (Pa. 2014) (mootness doctrine requires live controversy at all stages)
- Public Defender’s Office of Venango County v. Venango County Court of Common Pleas, 893 A.2d 1275 (Pa. 2006) (mootness exceptions; detriment exception can permit review)