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
Schultz v. Sundance Apartments
No. 96-CV0791 (Tex. Dist. Ct. Galveston County filed Jan. 8, 1997) ; Clearinghouse Number: 51551
Description
Section 8 Tenant Challenges Landlord’s Eviction Practices and Apartment Rules
Abstract
Plaintiff Section 8 tenant has filed a petition challenging Section
221(d)(4) housing project’s eviction practices and house
rules. Plaintiff alleges that the notice of proposed lease
termination sent to her by defendant does not state the grounds for
termination with enough detail for her to prepare a defense and
does not advise her of her right to a meeting within ten days to
discuss the notice, her right to defend herself in court, or her
right to be evicted only through judicial proceedings, all in
violation of paragraph 23c of the lease, 24 C.F.R. § 247.4
(a), and the HUD handbook. Plaintiff further complains that
defendant’s generic mass notice for an upcoming apartment
inspection violates the lease and plaintiff’s right to
privacy. She also alleges that such defendant’s house rules
as that all apartment occupants must be named on the lease (not
excluding visiting tenant’s family members and guests), that
rent will not be accepted without payment of outstanding late
charges, and that a fee of $25 must be paid to unlock a
tenant’s door are unreasonable terms and conditions of the
lease contract in violation of 12 U.S.C. §1715A-1b(b)(3) and
the HUD Handbook; defendant breaches its own contract by adopting
such unreasonable terms and conditions. Plaintiff argues in the
alternative that the rules are not terms and conditions of the
contract and are therefore unenforceable.
