Justia Landlord - Tenant Opinion Summaries

Frank Hallberg rented an apartment from Steve Schmitz in Helena. Schmitz sent Hallberg a 30-day notice to vacate, and upon inspecting the apartment on July 12, 2021, Schmitz found 20-30 holes in the walls. Schmitz took photos and called the police, who also documented the damage. Hallberg was charged with Criminal Mischief Damage to Rental Property.The Municipal Court scheduled an omnibus hearing, which Hallberg attended without his attorney. The hearing was rescheduled multiple times, and neither Hallberg nor his attorney appeared at the final rescheduled hearing. Consequently, the court set a bench trial for April 15, 2022, which was held on December 14, 2022. The court found Hallberg guilty and ordered him to pay $1,226.45 in restitution. Hallberg appealed to the District Court, arguing he was denied a jury trial, the evidence was insufficient, and the restitution amount was incorrect. The District Court affirmed the Municipal Court's decision, stating Hallberg waived his right to a jury trial by not objecting and that the restitution amount was supported by Schmitz’s testimony.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. It held that Hallberg waived his right to a jury trial by failing to object to the bench trial. The court found sufficient evidence to support Hallberg’s conviction based on the testimonies and photographic evidence presented. The court also upheld the restitution amount, finding it was not clearly erroneous as it was supported by Schmitz’s testimony regarding repair costs. The Supreme Court affirmed the District Court’s decision. View "City of Helena v. Hallberg" on Justia Law

In March 2021, Jeffrey A. Winder and Heather Durbin rented a room at a motel. During check-in, the motel manager, Gary McCullough, warned Winder that any illegal activity would result in eviction. The next day, McCullough entered the room for cleaning and discovered a backpack containing what appeared to be methamphetamine. He immediately called 911 and informed the responding officers about his discovery. Upon the officers' arrival, McCullough granted them permission to enter the room, which led to them finding more drugs and a handgun. Winder and Durbin were later arrested when they returned to the motel; another gun and more drugs were found in their vehicle.Before trial, Winder moved to suppress all the evidence obtained from the warrantless search of the motel room, arguing that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated. A magistrate judge recommended that the motion to suppress be denied. The district court adopted this recommendation, ruling that Winder had been evicted at the time of the search and that the officers had probable cause to search the backpack based on McCullough's account. Winder pleaded guilty conditionally to one count of possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute and one count of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress.On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, the court affirmed the district court's denial of the motion to suppress. The court found that Winder was lawfully ejected from the motel room prior to the officers' entry, thus eliminating his expectation of privacy. The court also ruled that the officers' search of the backpack did not violate the Fourth Amendment as it did not exceed the scope of McCullough's private search. Consequently, the use of a drug dog and the subsequent seizure of evidence did not violate Winder's Fourth Amendment rights. Therefore, the judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "United States v. Winder" on Justia Law

In the case before the Supreme Court of Ohio, the issue concerned whether a landlord or landlord's agent can prohibit a person from entering leased premises, even if that person has received permission from a tenant. The case arose when Antonio Randolph was banned from an apartment complex by the property manager and was then later arrested and charged with criminal trespass after he was discovered in his uncle's apartment at the complex, which his uncle had invited him to. The trial court found Randolph guilty of criminal trespass. The Sixth District Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment, holding that the city had to prove that Randolph had entered the premises without privilege, and that his uncle's invitation to the apartment contradicted this.Upon review, the Supreme Court of Ohio agreed with the Sixth District's decision. The court held that a landlord or landlord's agent generally may not exclude a person from rented premises such that the excluded person is considered a trespasser when on the premises even if the person received permission to enter the premises from a tenant of the property. The court noted that Ohio law provides that a landlord cedes his or her possessory interests in leased property to the tenant and therefore may not prohibit the tenant from inviting guests onto the property.However, the court also highlighted that a landlord can maintain control over access to a property if the landlord so desires, provided that this authority is reserved in the lease agreement. In the absence of such a provision in the lease agreement, a tenant may invite onto the property a person whom the landlord has sought to ban from the premises. The judgment of the Sixth District Court of Appeals was affirmed. View "State v. Randolph" on Justia Law

Between 2012 and 2014, three University of Michigan students (plaintiffs) rented rooms from Alawi, which collected $2550 in security deposits from the three. When they moved out, they received their security deposits back, minus small deductions for minor damages to the properties. Plaintiffs believed that Alawi had not complied with Michigan law, which requires landlords to deposit security deposits in a regulated financial institution and to provide the address of that institution to the tenant. The plaintiffs sued Alawi for $6.6 million on behalf of a putative class of six years’ worth of tenants, alleging violations of Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and Michigan law; alleging that Alawi was not entitled to hold security deposits at all (given these alleged breaches of Michigan law), and that knowingly taking security deposits anyway constituted a pattern of federal wire, mail, and bank fraud. The Sixth Circuit affirmed dismissal, finding that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the RICO claim. The complaint failed to articulate any concrete injury; its allegations were too vague to meet the particularity requirement of fraud allegations under Civil Rule 9(b). View "Wall v. Michigan Rental" on Justia Law

Trenea Figgs was a participant in the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Section 8 program, which was administered by the Boston Housing Authority. After the discovery by police officers of marijuana and a loaded firearm in Figgs’s apartment, the BHA notified Figgs of its intent to terminate her participation in the Section 8 program due to violations of her lease. A hearing officer concluded that termination of Figgs’s Section 8 housing subsidy was proper in light of her serious lease violation. The Housing Court reversed and ordered the BHA to reinstate Figgs’s Section 8 housing subsidy. The Supreme Judicial Court reversed the judgment of the Housing Court, holding that, notwithstanding the enactment of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 94C, 32L, which decriminalized the possession of one ounce or less of marijuana, the hearing officer properly concluded that Figgs violated her lease based on evidence of other criminal activity in Figgs’s rental premises, and the violation warranted Figgs’s termination from the Section 8 program. View "Figgs v. Boston Housing Auth." on Justia Law

Petitioner was a tenant in a New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) public housing apartment. After Petitioner became employed, she failed to disclose her new earnings to her landlord, an omission that allowed her to pay a substantially lower rent than she would have had she revealed the income. After NYCHA discovered the misrepresentation, Petitioner was criminally charged for failing to report her income. Petitioner pleaded guilty to a reduced charge of petit larceny and received a conditional discharge upon her agreement to pay restitution to NYCHA. Thereafter, NYCHA ordered that Petitioner's tenancy be terminated. Petitioner subsequently challenged that determination, claiming that eviction might leave her and her children homeless. Supreme Court affirmed NYCHA's determination. The Appellate Division reversed and vacated the penalty of termination, concluding that the termination of tenancy was so disproportionate to the offense, in light of the circumstances, as to shock the judicial conscience. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the NYCHA's decision to terminate Petitioner's tenancy was not so disproportionate to her misconduct as to shock the judicial conscience. View "Perez v. Rhea" on Justia Law