Court Opinion

ID: 9574998
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:10:34.829496+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:47:45.940286
License: Public Domain

*705PAGE, Justice
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I respectfully dissent.1 The central issues in this case are whether respondent Mai Lor materially breached the terms of her lease with MPHA and whether the eviction proceedings comported with due process requirements. The lease agreement provides for termination of the lease for:
any criminal activity that threatens the health, safety, or right to peaceful enjoyment of the premises by other tenants, neighbors and public housing employees, or drug-related criminal activity on or near the premises engaged in by a Tenant, a member of the Tenant’s household, a guest or another person under Tenant’s control while the Tenant is a tenant in public housing.
While the district court found that a drive-by shooting occurred and that the police found weapons at Lor’s address, the court failed to make a finding regarding whether these events constituted “serious or repeated violations of material terms of the Lease.” In addition, the district court did not make any findings regarding K.Y.’s arrest or whether the criminal activity “threaten[ed] the health, safety, or right to peaceful enjoyment of the premises by other tenants, neighbors and public housing employees.”2 In the absence of such findings, we cannot determine whether Lor materially breached the terms of the lease. Moreover, if Lor did not materially breach the terms of the lease, she was not accorded due process when MPHA sought to terminate the lease. Thus, I would remand this case to the district court for specific findings regarding whether Lor materially breached the lease agreement.

. I agree with the court that the trial court should not have relied on equitable principles in determining that the MPHA could not evict Lor.

. In fact, the only evidence in the record as to whether the "health, safety or right to peaceful enjoyment of the premises” was threatened by K.Y.'s conduct indicates that there was no such threat.