Harriet Tubman Development/CHA v. Reginald Locklin
2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 353
| Tenn. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Tenant Reginald Locklin and his five children resided in CHA's Harriet Tubman Development since 2005.
- November 13, 2010: a confrontation occurred with the Rice family, leading to property damage and arrests of Demarcus Locklin and Reginald Ballard.
- CHA issued a 'one strike' notice on November 14, 2010, terminating the lease for violent or criminal activity threatening others' health, safety, or peaceful enjoyment.
- CHA filed an unlawful detainer; the tenant defaulted in sessions court and CHA obtained judgment; trial court conducted a bench trial and granted CHA possession.
- Tenant appealed asserting denial of due process and arbitrary decisionmaking by CHA; CHA sought to moot the appeal after surrender of possession.
- Court analyzes mootness and concludes the case is not moot due to collateral consequences and the governing lease language imposing strict liability for conduct affecting others.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CHA's eviction was arbitrary or capricious | Locklin argues CHA failed to engage in reasoned decisionmaking and balance policy considerations. | CHA asserts strict liability under lease and proper consideration of relevant factors. | No; CHA's decision not arbitrary; factors supported eviction. |
| Whether the case is moot after surrender of possession | Locklin contends collateral consequences render the case capable of review. | CHA argues mootness given surrender, with no ongoing dispute. | Not moot due to collateral consequences and public-interest considerations. |
Key Cases Cited
- Memphis Housing Auth. v. Thompson, 38 S.W.3d 504 (Tenn. 2001) (leases may impose strict liability for criminal activity threatening others)
- Nashville Housing Auth. v. Taylor, 442 S.W.2d 668 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1968) (PHAs must avoid arbitrary evictions and follow policy standards)
- Dep't of Housing and Urban Dev. v. Rucker, 535 U.S. 125 (U.S. S. Ct. 2002) (strict standards and potential deportment of eviction decisions)
- In re Valentine, 79 S.W.3d 539 (Tenn. 2002) (de novo review applied to certain factual findings in administrative matters)
- Alliance for Native American Indian Rights in Tennessee, Inc. v. Nicely, 182 S.W.3d 333 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005) (mootness and standing principles in appellate review)
- Union Carbide Corp. v. Huddleston, 854 S.W.2d 87 (Tenn. 1993) (standards for reviewing legal conclusions and evidentiary findings)