Turner v. Chicago Housing Authority
760 F.Supp. 1299, 1991 WL 41766, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2786 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a term in a public housing lease, such as "premises," is used consistently and unambiguously throughout the document to refer to the tenant's individual dwelling unit, it will be interpreted narrowly to mean only that unit. A public housing authority cannot rely on a lease clause governing conduct on the "premises" to evict a tenant for the actions of a non-occupant that occur outside the tenant's specific apartment.
Facts:
- Eddie Lee Turner and Mozella Donner were tenants in separate public housing developments operated by the Chicago Housing Authority (CHA).
- Both Turner's son, David, and Donner's son, Carl, were adults who were not listed as authorized occupants on their mothers' leases.
- On December 10, 1988, Carl Donner was arrested for possession of a controlled substance in the parking lot of the building where his mother lived.
- On May 20, 1989, David Turner was arrested while on CHA property at a different building from where his mother resided.
- The lease agreement for both tenants contained a clause, ¶ 9(k), requiring them to 'cause other persons who are on the premises with his consent to conduct themselves' in a safe and lawful manner.
- Based on their sons' arrests on CHA property but outside their individual apartments, the CHA served both Turner and Donner with Notices of Termination of Tenancy.
Procedural Posture:
- The Chicago Housing Authority (CHA) served Notices of Termination of Tenancy to tenants Eddie Lee Turner and Mozella Donner.
- CHA initiated state court eviction actions against both Turner and Donner.
- The state court eviction actions against both plaintiffs were dismissed without prejudice.
- Turner and Donner, representing a class of similarly situated tenants, filed suit against the CHA in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
- Both the plaintiffs (tenants) and defendants (CHA) filed cross-motions for summary judgment in the District Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does paragraph 9(k) of the Chicago Housing Authority lease, which makes a tenant responsible for the conduct of persons 'on the premises with his consent,' permit the eviction of a tenant based on the criminal conduct of a non-resident that occurs on CHA common property but outside the tenant's individual apartment unit?
Opinions:
Majority - Hart, District Judge
No. Paragraph 9(k) of the CHA lease does not permit the eviction of a tenant for the conduct of a non-resident occurring outside the tenant's individual apartment unit. The court reasoned that a plain reading of the entire lease contract shows the word 'premises' is consistently and unambiguously used to mean only the tenant's individual dwelling unit, not the entire housing development. The court identified nine separate paragraphs where 'premises' could only logically refer to the apartment itself, such as clauses mentioning 'exclusive use,' 'entry of premises,' and differentiating between the 'premises' and the 'development.' Since the misconduct by the tenants' sons occurred in a parking lot and at another building on CHA grounds—not within their mothers' apartments—the court concluded that paragraph 9(k) does not provide a contractual basis for termination.
Analysis:
This decision significantly limits a public housing authority's ability to enforce 'one-strike' or vicarious liability eviction policies based on common lease language. By applying strict principles of contract interpretation, the court established that a tenant's responsibility for guest conduct 'on the premises' is confined to the physical boundaries of their own apartment. This ruling forces housing authorities to prove a more direct link between a tenant and misconduct occurring in common areas and prevents them from broadly interpreting ambiguous terms to justify evictions. It underscores that even in the context of federally subsidized housing, standard contractual rules of construction apply, protecting tenants from liability for events they may not be able to control occurring outside their immediate dwelling.
