Opinion ID: 1060541
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: standard of review

Text: Summary judgment is appropriate where no genuine issues of material fact exist and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56.04. We must take the strongest view of the evidence in favor of the non-movant, allow all reasonable inferences, and discard all countervailing evidence. See Byrd v. Hall, 847 S.W.2d 208, 210-11 (Tenn. 1993). Our review concerns a question of law only. Therefore, the trial court's judgment is not presumed correct, and our review is de novo on the record before this Court. See Miller v. Willbanks, 8 S.W.3d 607, 608-09 (Tenn. 1999); Bain v. Wells, 936 S.W.2d 618, 622 (Tenn. 1997). Standard for Eviction: Strict Liability or Knowledge? As stated, the issue in this appeal arises from a lease provision that is mandated by federal law; therefore, we begin our analysis by considering the relevant federal law. The Federal Housing Act is intended to assist state and local governments in providing affordable housing to low income families. See Pub. L. No. 75-412, 50 Stat. 888 (1937); 42 U.S.C. § 1437(a); Punishing the Innocent: -4- No-Fault Eviction of Public Housing Tenants for the Actions of Third Parties, 76 Tex. L. Rev. 1495, 1498 (1998). Under the Act, responsibility for managing, maintaining, and operating public housing developments is vested in local public housing agencies, such as MHA, rather than the federal government. See 42 U.S.C. § 1437(a)(1)(c). To obtain federal funding, however, local public housing agencies must agree to abide by federal law and by federal regulations, promulgated by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”). See generally 42 U.S.C. § 1437(g). Concerned about the prevalence of crime in public housing developments, Congress passed the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act of 1990. See Pub. L. 101-625. This legislation required all public housing agencies to include in their leases the following provision: any criminal activity that threatens the health, safety, or right to peaceful enjoyment of the premises by other tenants or any drug-related criminal activity on or near such premises, engaged in by a public housing tenant, any member of the tenant’s household, or any guest or other person under the tenant’s control, shall be cause for termination of tenancy. 42 U.S.C. § 1437(d)(l)(6). The scope of this statute was broadened further by a 1996 amendment which replaced the phrase “on or near such premises,” with the phrase “on or off such premises.” See Pub. L. 104-20 § 9(a)(1); 42 U.S.C. § 1437(d)(l)(6). To implement this statutory mandate, HUD promulgated regulations that require public housing authorities to include a provision in their leases [t]o assure that the tenant, any member of the household, a guest, or another person under the tenant’s control, shall not engage in . . . any drug-related criminal activity on or near such premises. Any criminal activity in violation of the preceding sentence shall be cause for termination of tenancy, and for eviction from the unit. 24 C.F.R. § 966.4(f)(12)(i)(B). Another regulation similarly provides that any drug-related criminal activity on or off the premises “by the tenant, any member of the household, a guest, or another person under the tenant’s control, shall be cause for termination of tenancy.” 24 C.F.R. § 966.4(l)(2)(ii)(B). Consistent with these regulations, in 1996 the Clinton administration announced a “One Strike and You’re Out” policy which encouraged local public housing authorities to take full advantage of these federal statutes to promote community safety in public housing. See 76 Tex. L. Rev. at 1503. Attempting to comply with these federal laws, MHA has included the following provisions in its leases: 7. OBLIGATIONS OF RESIDENT Resident Agrees: -5-