| defendant, Keyimi King, suspensively appealed the August 9, 2012 First City Court judgment in favor of the plaintiff, Housing Authority of New Orleans (“HANO”), ordering the eviction of Ms. King from the premises located at 1114 North Rocheblave Street.
On July 6, 2012, HANO filed a Rule for Possession of Premises asking that Ms. King be evicted from the premises at 1114 North Rocheblave Street. The eviction request was based on HANO’s allegation that Ms. King violated the “One Strike Policy” due to thе commission of criminal activity, including being arrested for interfering with a police investigation, battery on a police officer, resisting arrest and threats on an officer. In the Notice to Vacate sent to Ms. King by HANO on June 22, 2012, HANO referred to Ms. King’s arrest on the above-stated charges on May 4, 2012. HANO stated in this
Any criminal activity that threatens the health, safety, or right to peaceful enjoyment of the premises or other residents; Any drug-related criminal activity on or off thе premises; Any pattern of alcohol abuse by any resident, member, or guest that threatens the health safety, or right to peacеful enjoyment of the premises or other residents. 24 Code of Federal Regulations 966.4.”
The notice directed Ms. King to vacate the premises within ten days, or HANO would file for an eviction proceeding in First City Court. The record includes a copy of HANO’s lease with Ms. King, although the lеase was not introduced at the trial on the eviction. The pertinent language in Section IX of the lease, while not identical tо the Code of Federal Regulations section cited in the Notice to Vacate, is similar to that language and states that a rеsident has an obligation:
(£)To assure that no Resident, any member of the household, or guest, engages in:
(1) Any criminal [activity] including, but not limited to[:] the possession of drugs, the possession with intent to distribute drugs and/or the manufacturing of drugs as defined in Section 102 of the Controlled Substance Act, crimes of violence against persons and/or property committed on or off the residence.
[[Image here]]
(n) To assure that no other person under the Resident’s control engages in:
—Any criminal activity that threatens the health, safety or right to peaceful enjoyment of the residence by other residents;
Is — Any drug-related criminal activity on the residence.
In her answer to the Rule for Possession of Premises, Ms. King noted that on May 7, 2012, she pled not guilty to the charges аgainst her. She also stated that the incident that led to her arrest took place on the corner of Bienville and Crozat Streеts, approximately two miles away from her apartment on North Rocheblave Street. The police report of the May 4, 2012 incident is in the record, although it was not introduced at the eviction proceeding.
Ms. King’s answer also alleged that her actions during thе incident in question were in response to an illegal and unconstitutional search of a vehicle by a police officer. Ms. King also urged several other reasons why the trial court should exercise its discretion to not terminate her lease.
At the eviction proceeding, HANO presented no testimony or documentary evidence. Oral argument of counsel was presented to the trial сourt, after which the court ordered that the Rule for Possession of Premises be made absolute, and ordered the eviction of Ms. King. Prior to that ruling, the trial court stated her finding that Ms. King’s arrest on the above-stated criminal charges warranted her eviction under her HANO lease, regardless of the ultimate outcome of those charges.
A judgment of eviction must be reversed when the lessor fails to prove the legal ground upon which the lessee should be evicted. Kenneth and Allicen Caluda Realty v. Fifth Business, L.L.C, 06-608, p. 4 (La.App. 5 Cir. 12/27/06),
As stated above, HANO offered no testimony or documentary evidence at the eviction proceeding. HANO offered argument of counsel only. Argument of counsel, no matter how artful, is not evidence. Houston v. Chargois,
Where legal errors of the trial court have tainted the fact finding process, the verdict below is not reviewed under the manifest error standard and, if the record is complete, the appellate court may make a de novo rеview of the record and determine the preponderance of the evidence. Urban Homeowners’ Corp. v. Abrams, 96-1237, pp. 4-5 (La.App. 4 Cir. 3/26/97),
For the reasons stated above, the trial court judgment of August 9, 2012 is hereby reversed.
REVERSED
Notes
. Trial on the criminal charges against Ms. King had not yet occurred when the eviction proceeding was held.