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
Housing Auth. of Salt Lake City v. Lopez Delgado
950300-CA (Utah Ct. App. Apr. 4, 1996) ; Clearinghouse Number: 51107
Description
Tenant Who Substantially Complies with Lease Obligations May Not Be Evicted
Abstract
The Utah Court of Appeals has affirmed the lower court's
judgment for defendant public housing tenant in this unlawful
detainer action. Plaintiff public housing authority (PHA) sought to
evict tenant after she failed to pay one month's rent on time.
Tenant purchased a money order in the amount of her rent and
deposited it in PHA's drop box on the fourth of the month. PHA
never received the money order and served tenant with a three-day
notice to quit on the tenth. After tenant notified PHA that she had
deposited the money order in its drop box, PHA instructed her
either to initiate a trace or to stop payment on it. PHA also
informed tenant that it would delay further legal action until she
could complete the trace. Tenant did not initiate the trace for two
weeks, and PHA filed this unlawful detainer action. The trace
eventually revealed that the money order had not been negotiated.
However, PHA refused tenant's attempt to tender her next
month's rent. The trial court found that tenant had acted in
good faith and dismissed PHA's action. PHA appealed. The
appellate court held that the doctrine of substantial compliance
could defeat a landlord's attempt to forfeit a lease because of
a minor breach. Equitable principles may be applied in appropriate
situations even involving nonpayment of rent. Finding that tenant
had substantially complied with the lease, the court held that PHA
was not entitled to forfeiture. The court rejected PHA's
argument that tenant had breached the lease because the money order
was 96 cents short and tenant did not promptly initiate a trace.
