*1 HOUSING MINNEAPOLIS PUBLIC
AUTHORITY, Appellant, LOR, Respondent.
Mai
No. C2-97-1756. Appeals of Minnesota.
Court of
5,May 1998. July 1998.
Review Granted Parsons, Minneapolis, and
Kenneth V.A. P.L.L.P., Smith, Parker, N. Smith Louis appellant. Minneapolis, for *2 9 drug-related Shoquist, activity N. Lawrence R. McDon- or criminal on or Cherie near premises engaged by Tenant, in ough, Legal Society Minneapolis, of Min- a a Aid household, respondent. guest member the Tenant’s a neapolis, for person or another under Tenant’s control DAVIES, P.J., by and decided Considered public while the .Tenant is a tenant in TOUSSAINT, C.J., KALITOWSKI, J. housing. MPHA brought The an unlawful detainer OPINION seeking respondent action the eviction of al- KALITOWSKI, Judge. leging that she her violated lease because a engaged member of her household in crimi- Appellant Minneapolis Housing Public Au- trial, activity. Following nal a (MPHA) thority contends district although court found that the MPHA has a erred in MPHA’s unlawful detain- strong removing interest in criminal and complaint against respondent er Mai Lor. gang activity properties, from its eviction appropriate remedy was not an under the FACTS facts of this case. The court further stated Respondent of a Mai Lor is tenant that since now knows of the crim- public housing property Minneapolis, activity, inal she can take mea- where her four minor she resided "with activity sures to ensure the ceases and thus children, including 17-year-old a son. While protect MPHA. respondent was out of state because of a illness, relative’s her son was involved in a ISSUES drive-by shooting public housing at another 1. Did the district court juvenile err consider- property, and was under detained ing other than factors whether the lease was charges. violated? guns respondent’s were Three found trial, day shooting. home the after the At findings 2. Were the of the district court (1) family clearly testified that: did support erroneous in of its conclusion any guns not own and those found appropriate remedy? were not was not an eviction (2) son’s; her she did not know what the family they if would do were not allowed to ANALYSIS (3) public housing;
remain her son did school, job, not cause trouble in has a I. has never before been in trouble with The MPHA district contends the police any signs being gang. or shown considering court erred as a matter of law in Respondent’s agree son said he would alleged violation facts other than whether the neither live in nor visit the home if the occurred. of its lease stay.
was allowed court’s state argument, the MPHA cites this ment that provisions
The termination of the lease provide: [ujnlawful proceeding, detainer is a civil only for determination is terminate, and the issue
Management shall not refuse to alleged complaint whether the facts renew the Lease or evict Tenant from the true. Our standard of review are dwelling except unit for serious or re- findings of fact whether the trial court’s peated violations of material terms of the clearly erroneous. are good Lease or other cause. Serious viola- tions of the Lease include limited to: [*] [*] n [*] but are not Minneapolis Community Smallwood, .1985), review denied 379 N.W.2d (Minn. 554, Dev. Feb. Agency (Minn.App 1986) omitted).
4) (citations Any activity conclude that this criminal threatens We health, controlling safety, right peaceful language in Smallwood is not or en- tenants, mandating joyment premises of the other here. The statute provisions for neighbors public housing employees, housing leases contain eviction hearing subsequent to have a in front of a neutral factfinder activity was enacted specific findings required decision. U.S.C.A. to make the Smallwood who )(5) 1437d(Z court in (Supp.1998). § Thus the reviewable the district court. Thus re consider the district type process Smallwood did not spondent was denied the due *3 housing reviewing public in guaranteed role the protections court’s for actions contested authority’s provi- application of the eviction subject involving agencies to the Minnesota Act, sion at issue here. Administrative Procedure Minn.Stat. (1996 §§ Supp.1997). 14.001-.69 & See language plain the of neither the Because (“It duty § shall of Minn.Stat. 14.50 be the the nor the are clear as to lease statute * * * (3) judge the administrative law to: by pub- appropriate of the exercise discretion that in hearings see to it all are conducted a courts, housing authority the con- lic and we n * * impartial and manner. it shall comments, fair applicable regulations, sider the duty the the law also be of administrative Burlington legislative history. See Comm’n, judge report proposed make on to a each R. Northern v. Oklahoma Tax Co. 454, 461, 1855, 1860, agency action in the which administrative law 107 95 481 U.S. S.Ct. (1987) (allowing judge capacity, functioned in an official stat 404 to con- L.Ed.2d courts ing findings of legislative history is fact and conclusions and rec sider when the statute ommendations, taking ambiguous). degree notice of to the * n * agency the which demonstrated Although requires the statute “immediate pro for the need and reasonableness of its tenancy” termination of some lease the for posed presentation action with an affirmative violations, automatically require it not does facts.”); (“In any § of 14.58 con Minn.Stat. activity by where is a eviction there parties case all shall afforded an tested be household member. U.S.C.A. * * *, opportunity hearing for issues] [the 1437d(£)(7) Thus, § (Supp.1998). the statute fully practicable, be as soon shall stated as by allows the exercise of discretion the opportunity parties shall be afforded all housing authority determining in whether present argument re to evidence and with history appropriate. Legislative eviction thereto.”). rudimentary spect Absent these suggests congress that further that intended process protections due at the administrative judgment courts would in turn exercise their level, congres the consistent with stated reviewing public housing the authori- when intent “humane sional that courts exercise ty’s discretionary S.Rep. No. decision. See judgment” in proceedings, eviction we con (1990), reprinted at 101-316 in it was the court to clude not error for district (“The 5763, 5941 committee an- U.S.C.C.A.N. discretionary the MPHA’s decision to review ticipates judged that each ease will be on its respondent’s terminate lease. require individual merits and will the wise judgment by of humane the PHA exercise court.”).
and the eviction re- We therefore II. ject MPHA’s that the contention review of Having court determined district MPHA’s decision the limited to court is ap of MPHA’s decision to was review evict of the issue whether the facts establish we propriate, further conclude the district violation of the lease. proper review here was on court’s based
Further for broader district regulations considerations. The under which of decision to found review MPHA’s evict is operates following the MPHA list the factors language respondent’s in let- eviction agency deciding that the can consider when stating ter “not entitled a tenant’s whether terminate lease: grievance procedure to use the MPHA’s deciding activity, In evict for criminal opportu- contest this decision” and that “the the PHA shall have discretion to consider nity hearing provides for a “the Court” case, all of the circumstances includ- process basic elements of due as defined offense, ing the seriousness of the the ex- regulations.” HUD members, by family participation tent Because was not to use and the effects that eviction would allowed grievance family procedure, MPHA’s did not havé on members not involved she
H this ease as found activity. facts of proscribed court, oc- district court did not cases, may permit continued we conclude the PHA family ac- remaining members err in the unlawful detainer cupancy by mem- may impose a condition tion. proscribed activi- engaged
bers who ty in the unit. will not reside DECISION 966.4ffi(5)(i)(1997). Because the § 24 C.F.R. court did not err as a matter The district “all to consider MPHA was authorized reviewing discretionary decision of law including “the ex- of the case” circumstances bring unlawful detainer of the MPHA to an by family members” we participation tent Further, district court did not action. reject argument that the district the MPHA’s *4 detainer action err in the unlawful addressing wheth- specifically court erred that when it found the evidence established to knowledge of or reason respondent er had appropriate remedy. eviction was not the activity. anticipate the criminal Affirmed. the district court’s apparent from It is properly findings that the court considered DAVIES, Judge (concurring specially). regulations specified the the factors decision, an majority that eviction is not but reaching its conclusion I concur with the MPHA contends appropriate remedy. analysis. The separately to add to the write leading this findings court’s the district Minneapolis appellant Public Because clearly dis erroneous. We conclusion were Authority governmental body, it Housing is a agree. private action as a cannot be treated this Initially, note that the district we Doing governmental risk landlord. so would to make relevant credi- opportunity the had arbitrariness. considering ap- and bility determinations defended itself Appellant could have Further, we factors. plying by provid- charge of arbitrariness against the evidentiary sup- is substantial conclude there explanation an ing court with the district findings and that port for the district court’s to its decision to evict. policy that led con- findings in turn the court’s authority expla- no housing offered But the appropriate. not that eviction was clusion action until this aggressive its nation for (1) respon- record indicates: Specifically, the pursuing it suggested it was appeal, when away home when her son’s from the dent was then, it of- policy. Even “zero-tolerance” occurred, activity and had no knowl- policy. Be- fered little documentation (2) activity; re- edge or involvement policy must have zero-tolerance even a cause facility, juvenile and spondent’s son is in a boundaries, were not ex- these limits stay away the home after agreed to from has court, the court itself plained to the district (3) evicted; if the is not his release reasonable limita- compelled to construct any other lease evidence of there was no tions. in the time violations (4) home; had no lived appropri- detainer court could An unlawful activity anticipate the criminal reason to authority to show ately require the (5) son; respondent speaks no the minor policies clear it had made its eviction hardship for English would be a severe and it Culp As Professor Kenneth its tenants. younger children respondent and her three written, Davis has residence. attempt find another [wjhen doing, it it agency knows what an form what it is. The say in some should Finally, policy it is the we note that gap between goal be to close should are not favored that “[f]orfeitures this state about agency its staff know what great injustice not be enforced when will an policy and what agency’s law and seeking thereby a forfei and the one is done probably gap The can can know. outsider protected adequately without.” War ture is closed, the effort completely but Driscoll, 1, 5, never be. 186 Minn. N.W. ren (1932). always continue. should policy In of this and the view Preliminary A In- Discretionary Justice: (1969).
quiry 102 case, provided agency no evi- this tenants, leaving practices,
dence its usual court, an and this court with
impression arbitrariness. of hard-hearted
Shirley Robert BERG and
Berg, Respondents, *5 COUNTY, Appellant.
HUBBARD
No. C8-97-1986. Appeals
Court Minnesota.
5,May 1998. July
Review Denied 1998.