Magistrates from around the state report to me that summary ejectment actions involving public housing authorities seem to be on the rise. In North Carolina, summary ejectment is the judicial process by which a landlord can seek an order of the court granting the landlord possession of a rental property. The two-step process begins with a judgment for possession rendered by a judicial official, often a magistrate in small claims court, and is completed by the issuance of a writ of possession that authorizes the sheriff to remove tenants who fail to vacate the rental property or who fail to stay the issuance of a writ of execution. When the landlord is a public housing authority or a participant in a housing voucher program, both state and federal housing laws are involved which adds to the level of complexity already present in an action for summary ejectment. In fact, these types of cases are specifically referred to as “complex” in GS 7A-222(b), the statutory provision that authorizes magistrates to reserve judgment in more complex summary ejectment actions. Added to the legal complexity are the high stakes for renters with low incomes who may be ineligible for participation in subsidized housing for years following an eviction.
Continue ReadingArchive
Tag: subsidized housing
-
-
Unconscionability, Public Housing & Summary Ejectment
In a prior post, I talked about Eastern Carolina Regional Housing Authority v. Lofton, 767 S.E.2d 63 (2014), a North Carolina Court of Appeals case requiring a landlord seeking summary ejectment based on breach of a lease condition to prove as an essential element of the case “that summarily ejecting [the] defendant would not be unconscionable.” Last week the North Carolina Supreme Court disagreed in a long-awaited opinion, making clear that “the equitable defense of unconscionability is not a consideration in summary ejectment proceedings.” In so doing, the Supreme Court finally put the issue to rest, reconciling inconsistent statements of the law in several Court of Appeals cases, including Lincoln Terrace Associates v. Kelly, Charlotte Housing Authority v. Fleming, 123 N.C. App. 511 (1996), and Durham Hosiery v. Morris. Today, NC law provides that in an action for summary ejectment based on breach of a lease condition, it is sufficient for a landlord to demonstrate that the tenant breached the lease in a manner triggering the right to declare a forfeiture; the landlord has no additional burden to demonstrate that the result of such forfeiture will not be unconscionable. The Lofton opinion, written by Justice Newby, is significant for another reason: the Court also addressed the relative roles of a public housing authority (PHA) and a trial court in a summary ejectment action based on criminal activity in violation of the lease.