Case Title: Raleigh Housing Authority v. Winston

Citation: 

Docket Number: 385PA19

State: north-carolina

Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

Date: 2021-03-12T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA 
2021-NCSC-16 
No. 385PA19 
Filed 12 March 2021 
RALEIGH HOUSING AUTHORITY 
 
 
v. 
PATRICIA WINSTON 
 
On discretionary review pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 of a unanimous decision 
of the Court of Appeals, 267 N.C. App. 419 (2019), affirming an order entered on 
26 June 2018 by Judge Michael Denning in District Court, Wake County. Heard in 
the Supreme Court on 12 January 2021. 
 
The Francis Law Firm, PLLC, by Ruth Sheehan and Charles T. Francis and 
Alan D. Woodlief, Jr., for plaintiff-appellee. 
 
Robinson, Bradshaw & Hinson, P.A., by Erik R. Zimmerman and Ethan R. 
White; and Legal Aid of North Carolina, Inc., by Andrew Cogdell, Celia Pistolis, 
Darren Chester, Daniel J. Dore, and Thomas Holderness, for defendant-
appellant. 
 
Jack Holtzman, Emily Turner, Elizabeth Myerholtz, Lisa Grafstein, and Lisa 
Nesbitt for Disability Rights North Carolina, North Carolina Justice Center, 
North Carolina Housing Coalition, North Carolina Coalition to End 
Homelessness, North Carolina Coalition Against Domestic Violence, amici 
curiae. 
 
 
BARRINGER, Justice. 
 
¶ 1 
 
This case presents us with the question of whether a notice of lease termination 
provided to a tenant of public housing “state[d] specific grounds for termination.” 24 
RALEIGH HOUS. AUTH. V WINSTON 
2021-NCSC-16 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
C.F.R. § 966.4(l)(3)(ii) (2019).1 Plaintiff Raleigh Housing Authority (RHA) provided a 
notice of lease termination to defendant Patricia Winston (Winston) that notified her 
of RHA’s intent to terminate her lease due to “Inappropriate Conduct – Multiple 
Complaints” and quoted provision 9(F) of the lease agreement. Because the notice of 
lease termination failed to provide Winston with the factors necessary for her to be 
on notice of RHA’s justification for the termination of her lease on this record, we 
reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals. 
I. 
Background 
¶ 2 
 
RHA filed a complaint in summary ejectment against Winston on 
13 April 2018 in District Court, Wake County. RHA’s complaint alleged that the lease 
period had ended, and Winston was holding over after the end of the lease. In her 
answer, Winston denied these allegations and raised as a defense that the notice of 
lease termination “d[id] not state with specificity defendant’s alleged ‘Inappropriate 
Conduct’ ” and “violates federal lease notice requirements” citing 24 C.F.R. 
§ 966.4(l)(3)(ii). The lease agreement between Winston and RHA stated that “[t]he 
notice of termination to the Resident shall state reason(s) for the termination.” 
Following a summary ejectment trial in April 2018 and a hearing on RHA’s motion 
                                                 
1 While Winston cites court decisions from other jurisdictions addressing other 
regulations under Title 24, “Housing and Urban Development,” Winston has not argued that 
any regulation addressing written notice applies other than 24 C.F.R. § 966.4(l)(3)(ii) (2019). 
RALEIGH HOUS. AUTH. V WINSTON 
2021-NCSC-16 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
for eviction on 25 June 2018,2 the trial court entered an order allowing immediate 
possession of the apartment to RHA. In the order allowing immediate possession, the 
trial court made the following findings of fact:3 
3. 
On April 17, 2017 [t]he Defendant entered into a 
renewable twelve-month lease (“Lease”) with the Plaintiff 
for a one-bedroom apartment (Apartment #206) at 150 Gas 
Light Creek Court, Raleigh, N.C. 27601. 
4. 
Between October 2017 and November 2017, Plaintiff 
received three (3) written complaints from other tenants in 
the apartment complex about noise disturbances coming 
from Defendant’s apartment[.] 
5. 
After the first written complaint[,] Plaintiff issued 
the Defendant a written warning indicating to the 
Defendant that a complaint had been filed against her for 
noise disturbance. 
6. 
On or about December 1, 2017, after receiving a 
third written complaint from a tenant in the apartment 
complex, Plaintiff sent a letter to Defendant indicating that 
her lease would be terminated on December 31, 2017 as a 
result of violating Paragraph 9(f) of the Lease. 
7. 
Violating Paragraph 9(f) is a material breach of the 
Lease. 
8. 
After issuing the lease termination notice, Plaintiff 
had an informal meeting with the Defendant to discuss 
why her lease was being terminated. 
                                                 
2 The trial court’s order allowing immediate possession indicates that the trial court 
is addressing RHA’s motion for eviction. However, the trial court stated at the hearing that 
the trial court was hearing an appeal of a summary ejectment. 
3 Winston has not challenged any of the trial court’s findings of fact on appeal to this 
Court. The trial court’s findings of fact are therefore binding on appeal. See, e.g., Mussa v. 
Palmer-Mussa, 366 N.C. 185, 191 (2012). 
RALEIGH HOUS. AUTH. V WINSTON 
2021-NCSC-16 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
9. 
Plaintiff rescinded the lease termination letter after 
the informal meeting, as the Defendant made the Plaintiff 
aware that Defendant had been a victim of domestic 
violence. 
10. 
The [c]ourt takes judicial notice of the North 
Carolina Court Information System Electronic-Filing for 
Domestic violence complaints and notes that on December 
5th, 2017, after RHA had hand delivered and sent via 
Certified mail return receipt requested the first notice of 
Lease Termination to the Defendant, Defendant file[d] for 
an Ex-Parte Domestic Violence Protective Order (DVPO) 
against [another individual]. 
11. 
Defendant’s request for an Ex-Parte DVPO was 
DENIED on December 5th, 2017, and, notable her reasons 
for requesting the order were: 
He deserve [sic] my neighbor my landlord was 
going to put me out because she didn’t want 
here and I didn’t want he there but if he keep 
coming I we have to leave. 
12. 
Defendant did not obtain a DVPO against [the other 
individual] until the return hearing on December 18th, at 
that hearing [the other individual] was not present and the 
Defendant’s allegations had changed substantially: 
defendant repeatedly screams profanity at 
plaintiff and threatens to assault her; 
repeatedly verbal abuse for 17 years has 
caused her substantial emotional distress[.] 
13. 
At the time of the first warning Defendant indicated 
to Plaintiff that she intended to get a no trespass order 
against [the other individual]. 
14. 
On or about February 5, 2018, the Plaintiff received 
another noise complaint against the Defendant. 
RALEIGH HOUS. AUTH. V WINSTON 
2021-NCSC-16 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
15. 
On or about February 13, 2018, the Plaintiff issued 
a second notice of lease termination to the [Defendant]. 
16. 
On or about February 17, 2018, the Defendant wrote 
a memo to the Plaintiff acknowledging the noise 
disturbances and alleging that the disturbances were a 
result of [the other individual’s] three friends. 
17. 
Just after receiving the 2nd notice to terminate her 
lease, Defendant sent a letter to the RHA indicating she 
intended to get a no trespass order for the other three 
friends of [the other individual]. Defendant has neither 
received a no trespass order for any of the individuals nor 
has she made any affirmative efforts to do so. 
18. 
Per the Defendant’s rights, she had a grievance 
hearing on or about March 6, 2018 with an independent 
third party. The grievance hearing affirmed the Plaintiff’s 
decision to terminate the Defendant’s lease. 
¶ 3 
 
From these facts, the trial court concluded that “[d]efendant has . . . been given 
adequate notice of her violations of Paragraph 9(f) of the Lease.” 
¶ 4 
 
The Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court did not err by reaching this 
conclusion. Raleigh Hous. Auth. v. Winston, 267 N.C. App. 419, 424 (2019). The Court 
of Appeals held that “the Notice of Lease Termination to Defendant was in compliance 
with the governing federal regulation” because it “identified—and quoted—the 
specific provision serving as the basis for Defendant’s lease termination.” Id. 
¶ 5 
 
Winston sought discretionary review in this Court, asking this Court to 
consider “[w]hether a reference to a provision of a lease alone satisfies a public 
housing authority’s obligation under federal law to ‘state specific grounds’ for 
terminating the lease.” Winston also sought discretionary review concerning the 
RALEIGH HOUS. AUTH. V WINSTON 
2021-NCSC-16 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
business records exception to hearsay. This Court allowed the petition for 
discretionary review on both issues presented. We reverse the decision of the Court 
of Appeals on the first issue presented and remand to the trial court for dismissal. 
Accordingly, we decline to address the evidentiary issue concerning the business 
records exception and express no opinion concerning the manner in which the Court 
of Appeals resolved that issue. 
II. 
Standard of Review 
¶ 6 
 
“In federally subsidized housing cases, the court decides whether applicable 
rules and regulations have been followed, and whether termination of the lease is 
permissible.” E. Carolina Reg’l Hous. Auth. v. Lofton, 238 N.C. App. 42, 46 (2014) 
(quoting Charlotte Hous. Auth. v. Patterson, 120 N.C. App. 552, 555 (1995)), aff’d as 
modified, 369 N.C. 8 (2016). The construction of an administrative regulation is a 
question of law. United States v. Moriello, 980 F.3d 924, 930 (4th Cir. 2020). “On 
appeal, ‘[c]onclusions of law drawn by the trial court from its findings of fact are 
reviewable de novo.’ ” In re Estate of Skinner, 370 N.C. 126, 140 (2017) (alteration in 
original) (quoting In re Foreclosure of Bass, 366 N.C. 464, 467 (2013)); see also 
Moriello, 980 F.3d at 930. 
III. 
Analysis 
¶ 7 
 
At issue in this case is the construction of the term “specific grounds” in 24 
C.F.R. § 966.4(l)(3)(ii). Section 966.4 of Title 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations 
RALEIGH HOUS. AUTH. V WINSTON 
2021-NCSC-16 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
states: 
§ 966.4 Lease requirements. 
A lease shall be entered into between the PHA and 
each tenant of a dwelling unit which shall contain the 
provisions described hereinafter. 
. . . .  
(l) Termination of tenancy and eviction— 
. . . .  
(3) Lease termination notice. 
. . . .  
(ii) The notice of lease termination to the tenant 
shall state specific grounds for termination, and shall 
inform the tenant of the tenant’s right to make such reply 
as the tenant may wish. The notice shall also inform the 
tenant of the right (pursuant to § 966.4(m)) to examine 
PHA documents directly relevant to the termination or 
eviction. When the PHA is required to afford the tenant the 
opportunity for a grievance hearing, the notice shall also 
inform the tenant of the tenant’s right to request a hearing 
in accordance with the PHA’s grievance procedure. 
24 C.F.R. § 966.4. 
¶ 8 
 
“In resolving issues of statutory construction, we look first to the language of 
the statute itself.” Walker v. Bd. of Trs. of the N.C. Loc. Gov’tal Emps.’ Ret. Sys., 348 
N.C. 63, 65 (1998) (quoting Hieb v. Lowery, 344 N.C. 403, 409 (1996)); see also 
Radford, 734 F.3d at 293 (citing Chase Bank USA, N.A. v. McCoy, 562 U.S. 195, 204 
(2011)). When the term in the statute is unambiguous, the term “should be 
RALEIGH HOUS. AUTH. V WINSTON 
2021-NCSC-16 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
understood in accordance with its plain meaning.” Fid. Bank v. N.C. Dep’t of Revenue, 
370 N.C. 10, 20 (2017); see also Moriello, 980 F.3d at 934 (“If the language of the 
regulation ‘has a plain and ordinary meaning, courts need look no further and should 
apply the regulation as it is written.’ ” (quoting Gilbert v. Residential Funding LLC, 
678 F.3d 271, 276 (4th Cir. 2012)). To determine the plain meaning, this Court has 
looked to dictionaries as a guide. Midrex Techs., Inc. v. N.C. Dep’t of Revenue, 369 
N.C. 250, 258 (2016). 
¶ 9 
 
In 24 C.F.R. § 966.4(l)(3)(ii), the adjective “specific” modifies the noun 
“grounds.” “Grounds” is defined as “factors forming a basis for action or the 
justification for a belief.” Grounds, New Oxford American Dictionary (3rd ed. 2010); 
see also Ground, Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed. 2007) (defining 
“ground” as “a basis for belief, action, or argument”); Ground, Black’s Law Dictionary 
(11th ed. 2019) (defining “ground” as “[t]he reason or point that something (as a legal 
claim or argument) relies on for validity”). Meanwhile, “specific” is defined as “clearly 
defined or identified.” Specific, New Oxford American Dictionary (3rd ed. 2010); see 
also Specific, Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed. 2007) (defining 
“specific” as “free from ambiguity”). 
¶ 10 
 
The plain meaning of “specific grounds” therefore requires RHA to clearly 
identify the factors forming the basis for termination of the lease. Applying the 
unambiguous plain meaning of “specific grounds” leads us to conclude that RHA 
RALEIGH HOUS. AUTH. V WINSTON 
2021-NCSC-16 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
failed to comply with 24 C.F.R. § 966.4(l)(3)(ii). 
¶ 11 
 
The relevant portion of the notice of termination states: 
¶ 12 
 
As evidenced above, the notice of termination identifies provision 9(F) of the 
lease agreement, providing the contractual basis for termination of the lease. 
However, the notice of termination lacks any reference to specific conduct by Winston. 
RHA contends the “language [in the notice of termination] put . . . Winston on notice 
that her alleged lease violation was based on disturbing her neighbors.” Yet, a 
tenant’s disturbance of her neighbors encompasses a broad range of conduct, may 
involve the tenant or other persons on the premises, and, as relevant to this case, 
may include conduct for which the landlord may not evict the tenant as a matter of 
law. Specifically, as part of the Violence Against Women Act, ch. 322, 108 Stat. 1902 
(1994), Congress has prohibited covered housing programs from terminating 
participation in or evicting a tenant from housing “on the basis that the . . . tenant is 
or has been a victim of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking,” 
34 U.S.C. § 12491(b)(1), and mandates that 
[a]n incident of actual or threatened domestic violence, 
RALEIGH HOUS. AUTH. V WINSTON 
2021-NCSC-16 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking shall not be 
construed as— 
(A) a serious or repeated violation of a lease for 
housing assisted under a covered housing program by the 
victim or threatened victim of such incident; or 
(B) good cause for terminating the assistance, 
tenancy, or occupancy rights to housing assisted under a 
covered housing program of the victim or threatened victim 
of such incident. 
34 U.S.C. § 12491(b)(2); see also N.C.G.S. § 42-42.2 (2019) (prohibiting termination of 
tenancy or “retaliat[ion] in the rental of a dwelling based substantially on: (i) the 
tenant, applicant, or a household member’s status as a victim of domestic violence, 
sexual assault, or stalking”). The additional statement in the notice of termination—
“Inappropriate Conduct – Multiple Complaints”—is similarly broad and vague and 
subject to the same concerns as provision 9(F) of the lease agreement. 
¶ 13 
 
As a whole, the notice of termination is indeterminate. Winston cannot 
determine from the notice of termination how RHA contends she breached provision 
9(F) of the lease agreement, and none of the trial court’s factual findings support a 
conclusion otherwise. In the notice of termination, RHA failed to clearly identify the 
factors forming the basis for termination of the lease—the specific grounds for 
termination. Winston lacked adequate notice of the basis for the termination of lease. 
IV. 
Conclusion 
¶ 14 
 
We reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals. In this case, the identification 
and quotation of the specific provision serving as the basis for the landlord’s lease 
RALEIGH HOUS. AUTH. V WINSTON 
2021-NCSC-16 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
termination does not comply with 24 C.F.R. § 966.4(l)(3)(ii) because the factors 
forming the basis for termination of the lease cannot be discerned. While a quotation 
of the violated lease provisions in certain factual circumstances may provide “specific 
grounds for termination,” cf. Roanoke Chowan Reg’l Hous. Auth. v. Vaughan, 81 N.C. 
App. 354, 358 (1986) (holding that the notice of termination provided the specific 
grounds for termination even though it incorrectly cited Section 7 of the lease 
agreement because the statement—“by allowing individuals not named on the lease 
to reside in your apartment”—“put defendants on notice regarding the specific lease 
provision deemed to have been violated”), this issue and such a notice is not before 
us. We hold that on this record, the notice of termination was fatally deficient. 
Accordingly, we reverse the Court of Appeals’ decision concerning compliance with 24 
C.F.R. § 966.4(l)(3)(ii) and remand to the Court of Appeals for remand to the trial 
court for dismissal consistent with this opinion. 
REVERSED AND REMANDED.