Browse cases by category
- Attorneys & Legal Services
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Procedure & Administrative Law
- Civil Rights
- Consumer
- Criminal
- Disability
- Economic Development
- Education
- Elections
- Employment
- Environmental Justice
- Evidence
- Family Law
- Food Programs
- Government and Governmental Services
- Guardianship & Conservatorship
- Health
- Housing
- Immigration
- Juveniles
- License (Auto & Others)
- Mental Health
- Migrants
- Native Americans
- Other
- Prisons
- Public Utilities & Energy
- Rural Issues
- Senior Citizens
- Social Security & SSI
- Taxation
- Torts
- Unemployment Compensation & Unemployment Insurance
- Veterans & Military
- Welfare
- Wills & Estates
- Workforce Development
Kopanuk v. AVCP Regional Hous. Auth.
902 P.2d 813 (Alaska Sup. Ct. 1995); No. S-6432 (Alaska Sup. Ct. Sept. 15, 1995) ; Clearinghouse Number: 51104
Description
Tenant Participating in Mutual Help and Occupancy Program Is Not Subject to Eviction
Abstract
The Alaska Supreme Court has held that eviction action may not be
brought against tenants in the Mutual Help and Occupancy Program, a
homeownership program funded by HUD, commonly in Indian Country.
Petitioner tenant entered into a Mutual Help and Occupancy
Agreement (MHOA) with the local housing authority. The MHOA, a HUD
form contract that was self-described as a lease, required a
nonrefundable land contribution, which in this case was made by a
Native corporation. Tenant made monthly payments toward an
administrative charge and an equity payments account. Voluntary
overpayments were to be credited to another equity payments
account. The MHOA allowed tenant to purchase the home at any time;
the purchase price declined under the terms of the contract over 25
years, eventually reaching zero. Upon termination of the contract,
amounts in equity payments accounts were to be refunded. After
tenant fell behind in his payments, the housing authority sought to
evict him. Arguing that the MHOA was not a lease with an option to
purchase, but rather an installment contract for sale of real
property, tenant challenged the trial court's jurisdiction.
Tenant asserted that, because he had equitable interests in the
property at issue, he could not be evicted pursuant to a forcible
entry and detainer action. The trial court denied the challenge,
and the appellate court affirmed. Reversing, the supreme court
found that the MHOA's creation of equitable interests, or
potential equitable interests, in the home buyer precluded the
trial court from hearing the case. Counsel notes that this is the
first decision by the supreme court of any state on this issue.
