86 So. 3d 798
La. Ct. App.2012Background
- Defendants-appellants Ora Price, Darryl Price, and Leonard Price were residents of Treasure Village Apartments under a lease held by the Prices and Interstate Realty Management Company.
- Interstate alleged the Prices allowed Oneal and Leroy Price to reside at the premises without written approval and that they were not members of the household per the lease.
- Oneal and Leroy Price's presence was tied to a December 5, 2010 drive-by shooting at the complex, prompting a December 7, 2010 notice of infraction against Ora Price.
- A hearing was conducted on December 10, 2010 regarding the incident, after which the Prices reportedly did not request a formal grievance hearing beyond that meeting.
- On January 4, 2011, Interstate issued a 30-day Notice of Termination of Lease—Notice to Vacate, with February 4, 2011 as the lease termination date; the Prices contested the hearing but later faced a Rule to Evict filed on May 20, 2011.
- The trial court granted the Rule to Evict on June 16, 2011, concluding that the unauthorized occupancy and alleged criminal activity violated the lease’s provisions; the Prices appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether occupancy of Oneal and Leroy violated the lease terms | Interstate contends Oneal and Leroy were unauthorized residents under the lease. | Prices deny that Oneal and Leroy were unauthorized or that they constituted covered persons under the lease. | Yes; the court affirmed, finding the unauthorized occupancy breached the lease. |
| Whether the criminal activity and safety concerns supported eviction | Interstate asserts ongoing criminal activity and safety threats by occupants under the Prices’ control. | Prices challenge the credibility and linkage of alleged crimes to their control and deny procedural defects. | Yes; the court affirmed eviction based on health, safety, and peaceful enjoyment violations. |
| Whether proper grievance hearing and notice requirements were satisfied | Interstate argues the Prices received notice and had opportunities to be heard as required by law. | Prices claim grievance procedures were not properly followed and that a formal hearing was not obtained. | Yes; appellate review upheld that notice and opportunity to be heard complied with Article 4702, and no suspensive appeal was available due to failure to answer under oath. |
| Whether the One Strike Policy mandated eviction despite lack of a formal hearing | Interstate relies on the lease’s One Strike Policy to justify eviction for criminal activity regardless of formal proof or conviction. | Prices contend the policy does not override due process requirements for a hearing. | Yes; the policy supported eviction, and due process requirements were not shown to be violated. |
| Whether the Prices are entitled to a suspensive appeal | Interstate argues appeal bonds and filings did not meet suspensive appeal prerequisites. | Prices failed to answer the Rule for Possession under oath and to file the appeal bond timely. | No; suspensive appeal was not available because the Prices did not answer under oath and file the bond within the statutory window. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840 (La. 1989) (manifold standards for appellate review of factual findings)
- Arceneaux v. Domingue, 365 So.2d 1330 (La.1978) (standard for credibility and manifest error)
- Stobart v. State, Through DOTD, 617 So.2d 880 (La.1993) (reasonable fact-finder findings preserved on appeal)
- Housley v. Cerise, 579 So.2d 973 (La.1991) (deference to trial court credibility determinations)
- Mistich v. Volkswagen of Germany, Inc., 666 So.2d 1073 (La.1996) (appellate review of trial court's factual conclusions)
- Foret v. Terrebonne, Ltd., 631 So.2d 103 (La.App.5 Cir. 1994) (Art. 2004 ill practices—proof burden on movant)
- Green v. Neese, 769 So.2d 694 (La.App.4 Cir. 2000) (ill practices analysis under La. C.C.P. art. 2004)