Case Name: CURRAN PLACE APARTMENTS v. Valeria HOWARD
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1990-06-14
Citations: 563 So. 2d 577
Docket Number: No. 89-CA-2257
Parties: CURRAN PLACE APARTMENTS v. Valeria HOWARD.
Judges: Before SCHOTT, C.J., and BARRY and BECKER, JJ:
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 563
Pages: 577–579

Head Matter:
CURRAN PLACE APARTMENTS v. Valeria HOWARD.
No. 89-CA-2257.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.
June 14, 1990.
Laurie Peller, New Orleans Legal Assistance Corp., New Orleans, for defendant, appellant.
Before SCHOTT, C.J., and BARRY and BECKER, JJ:

Opinion:
BECKER, Judge.
Defendant/appellant, Valeria Howard, was a tenant at Curran Place Apartments pursuant to a written lease. Curran Place Apartments is a federally subsidized landlord receiving financing from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (H.U.D.) and as a recipient of federal funds is required to comply with federal statutes, regulations and policies, as well as its lease agreement which incorporates federal standards for evicting tenants.
On April 4, 1989, Mrs. Howard received a five day notice to vacate for "violation of lease." Following a rule to evict, a judgment was rendered on May 31, 1990, in favor of Curran Place Apartments ordering Ms. Howard to vacate her apartment. Pursuant to the judgment Ms. Howard vacated the premises on June 8, 1989. Due to her poverty, she was unable to post a suspen-sive appeal bond and therefore filed a motion to appeal devolutively which was granted June 9, 1989.
Appellant contends the trial court erred in ordering her eviction absent a finding of material noncompliance with the lease and absent a specific termination notice as required by the lease and federal law.
Appellant attempts to distinguish Versailles Arms Apartments v. Wheeler, 452 So.2d 326 (La.App. 4th Cir.1984). Because of her inability to post a suspensive appeal bond, she argues there was no meaningful acquiescence in the eviction order, but nevertheless vacated the premises. Having done so, any change in the trial court's judgment would have no practical or legal effect. While there may be some claim for damages for illegal eviction, no such claim is presented in this appeal.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
DISMISSED.
SCHOTT, C.J., concurs with reasons.
BARRY, J., dissents with reasons.