Gary Harris v. Paris Housing Authority
06-20-00086-CV
| Tex. App. | Jul 30, 2021Background
- Harris leased a unit from Paris Housing Authority (PHA) under a HUD-compliant lease that incorporated PHA regulations and a grievance procedure.
- On June 3, 2020 PHA issued a 30-day notice terminating Harris’s lease for vague allegations (multiple complaints of cursing/screaming, harassment and being “belligerent” toward maintenance); the notice invoked a grievance-procedure exception but did not allege any specific criminal activity, dates, or named complainants.
- PHA filed a forcible detainer action; a justice court awarded possession to PHA and Harris appealed to the county court.
- At the bench trial (no reporter’s record), PHA introduced the notice, lease, later-issued criminal trespass warnings, and witnesses testified about complaints; Harris introduced a video of the June 3 maintenance encounter that did not show aggression and his file showed no prior complaints.
- The county court found lease breaches and awarded possession; on appeal the court of appeals held the eviction notice failed HUD specificity and notice requirements and that Harris was harmed, reversed and remanded to abate until proper notice/procedures are followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Harris) | Defendant's Argument (PHA) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Did the eviction notice meet HUD specificity requirements? | Notice lacked dates, named complainants, and factual detail; therefore insufficient to prepare a defense. | Notice adequately described conduct (cursing, harassment, belligerence) and violated lease provisions. | Held: Notice was insufficient under HUD regs (24 C.F.R. §§247.4, 966.4(l)(3)(v)); too vague and conclusory. |
| 2. Could PHA validly deny grievance procedures without alleging criminal activity? | PHA did not allege criminal activity required to invoke the grievance exception; grievance procedures therefore applied. | PHA invoked the grievance exception based on threatening conduct. | Held: PHA did not satisfy the regulatory prerequisites for excluding grievance procedures—notice failed to state required specifics when claiming the exception. |
| 3. Must a tenant show harm from deficient notice and was Harris harmed? | Harm shown: deprived ability to prepare defense, denied discovery in justice court, evidence outside scope of notice admitted at trial. | Any deficiency was harmless because trial decided on the merits and testimony supported eviction. | Held: Harris was harmed—the deficient notice defeated notice’s due-process purposes and probably affected the judgment. |
| 4. Were evidentiary errors (e.g., testimony about prior conviction and post-notice trespass warnings) permissible? | Such evidence went beyond the termination notice’s scope and was irrelevant or prejudicial; objections were overruled. | Evidence showed tenant was a problem and supported termination. | Held: The record lacks underlying facts supporting those characterizations; because notice was deficient and harm shown, reliance on that evidence was improper in sustaining eviction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Moon v. Spring Creek Apartments, 11 S.W.3d 427 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2000, no pet.) (federal notice specificity and due-process requirements for HUD-subsidized housing)
- Nealy v. Southlawn Palms Apartments, 196 S.W.3d 386 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.) (insufficiently vague termination notices invalid)
- Corpus Christi Hous. Auth. v. Lara, 267 S.W.3d 222 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2008, no pet.) (notice must specify court/procedure when excluding grievance rights)