172 So. 3d 91
La. Ct. App.2015Background
- Cynthia Haynes, a Guste Homes tenant, was notified to vacate after her daughter Nicole was arrested at Haynes’s apartment on March 31, 2014; the eviction letter relied on lease provisions prohibiting "harboring" fugitives and HANO’s One Strike policy.
- HANO (or Guste/HANO) filed a rule for possession in First City Court alleging "harboring fugitive in apartment;" no lease was attached to the plaintiff’s filings and HANO presented no authenticated warrant or charging documents at trial.
- At the hearing, Guste Homes’ site manager Mary Wilson and security supervisor Lt. Allen testified the eviction decision was based on a security incident report and a flyer advising staff to notify police if Nicole appeared; neither produced an authenticated warrant or evidence Nicole had been charged or convicted.
- Haynes’s counsel argued HANO failed to prove (by preponderance) the elements of harboring (knowledge of a warrant, intent, and overt acts to conceal), and also excepted that HANO lacked a right of action because the lease on record named a different lessor/manager.
- The trial court ruled for HANO under the One Strike policy and ordered eviction; the appellate court reversed, finding inadequate proof of lease violation and insufficient evidence of harboring, and noting procedural and standing defects.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Right of action / plaintiff identity | HANO asserted it was the landlord and entitled to enforce the lease/One Strike eviction | Haynes argued the lease on record was between her and "Housing Owner of New Orleans / THE MANAGER" (Guste), not HANO, so HANO lacked standing | Reversed: plaintiff failed to prove it was party entitled to enforce the lease; trial court erred in ignoring no-right-of-action exception |
| Sufficiency of evidence for "harboring a fugitive" | HANO relied on visitor log, incident report, and statements that Nicole was "wanted" to show harboring under lease/One Strike | Haynes argued elements of harboring (knowledge of warrant, intent, affirmative acts to conceal) were not proven; daughter signed in and submitted to arrest openly | Reversed: evidence did not prove harboring; mere presence and signing in do not satisfy harboring elements |
| Applicability of One Strike expedited procedure / grievance waiver | HANO asserted One Strike allowed termination without grievance because criminal activity occurred | Haynes argued One Strike applies only to activity threatening health/safety or drug-related activity and requires proof; also due process and notice requirements apply | Court held HANO did not meet its burden; procedural protections and proof requirements cannot be relaxed; One Strike not a substitute for required proof |
| Use/authentication of documents and evidentiary standards | HANO sought "leniency" for document authentication in One Strike hearing | Haynes argued regular evidentiary rules apply and documents (warrant, flyer) were unauthenticated or missing | Court criticized admission practice and held that trial court improperly accepted unproven documents and testimony to support eviction |
Key Cases Cited
- Estates of New Orleans v. McCoy, 162 So.3d 1179 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2015) (standard for reversing eviction when lessor fails to prove legal ground)
- Housing Authority of New Orleans v. King, 119 So.3d 839 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2013) (lessor must prove basis for eviction)
- Durden v. Durden, 165 So.3d 1131 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2015) (possessory action requires prima facie showing of title/possession)
- U.S. v. Zerba, 21 F.3d 250 (8th Cir. 1994) (elements of harboring a fugitive include knowledge of warrant, overt acts to aid avoidance, and intent)
- U.S. v. Lockhart, 956 F.2d 1418 (7th Cir. 1992) (harboring requires affirmative physical action)
- U.S. v. Stacey, 896 F.2d 75 (5th Cir. 1990) (harbor and conceal are active verbs; narrow construction required)