Maple City Enterprises Inc. built and operates Maple Grove, a large apartment pr
ID: 347334 • Letter: M
Question
Maple City Enterprises Inc. built and operates Maple Grove, a large apartment
project for low-income residents. The project was funded under a state law providing
no-interest loans to private contractors who agree to follow state laws and rules in
operating low-income housing projects. The state statute authorizing this project
states the problem of low income housing is critical and poor people are entitled to
decent housing. It sets forth the conditions that must be met to be eligible to reside
in the project and the maximum rents that can be charged. The statute states that
projects must provide notice and an opportunity to present information before an
eviction can occur but does not provide any specific process to be followed.
Ms. Taylor Sniff filed an application for low-income housing and satisfied the
conditions of eligibility for residence in Maple Grove. Taylor's sole source of income is
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits. When she and her four children moved into
Maple Grove on January 1, she paid a $750 security deposit and signed a one-year
lease that stated the lease could only be renewed by agreement between Maple Grove
and the tenant. The lease also stated that tenants could be evicted for cause before
the end of the lease if they failed to follow the rules of Maple Grove. The rules
prohibit tenants from damaging apartments, disturbing other tenants, or allowing
persons not listed on the lease to reside in the apartment. The lease also required that
tenants vacate their apartments within 15 days of receiving an eviction notice. Under
the lease, the tenant can file a written objection to the eviction notice within 5 days after receiving the eviction notice, and the project manager must then decide whether
to uphold the eviction based on that written objection and any documentation found
in the tenant's rental file. The rules require Maple Grove to provide a full oral
evidentiary hearing before the project's board of directors within one week after the
tenants move out if the tenants request a hearing and deny the facts upon which the
eviction is based.
Jake Villainhall, the project manager served Sniff with a notice of eviction on
February 1, which alleged that she and her children had violated Maple Grove's rules
by disturbing other tenants and allowing her boyfriend, Tom Piddleston, to reside in
the apartment but furnished no specific details. Sniff denied all the allegations and
requested an opportunity to review her rental file, but Villianhall said the file was
confidential until the time of the evidentiary hearing. The notice ordered her to move
out by February 16 and informed her that an evidentiary hearing would be held on
February 23 if she requested one. Villainhall also called the Department of Social
Services and informed Sniff ’s TANF caseworker that Piddleston was cohabitating in
the apartment with Sniff, which could affect her eligibility for TANF and SNAP
benefits.
If Maple Grove Apartments had waited until the end of the year and informed Taylor that her lease was not being renewed, would due process apply to the nonrenewal action and explain your answer.
Explanation / Answer
According to the given case Mrs. T has violated the rules and regulations stated in the lease of the MCE. She has allowed her boy friend to stay with them which is not allowed as per the statue of the lease. This action of the Mrs. T has disturbed the neighbors which caused for the notice of eviction.
This due process can be considered to be a valid reason for the non renewal of the lease for Mrs. T. Since she has violated the statue of the lease by allowing her boy friend she could have been evicted within 15 days after providing the eviction notice. If she is allowed to stay for one year considering the ethical constraints she can be stopped from renewing the lease considering this due process.