Stevens v. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF SOUTH BEND, IND., 663 F.3d 300 (2011)

Citation: Stevens v. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF SOUTH BEND, IND., 663 F.3d 300 (2011)
Parent Document: Stevens v. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF SOUTH BEND, IND., 663 F.3d 300 (2011)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 2011-12-01
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/618130/stevens-v-housing-authority-of-s... ↗

Full Text

1,230 chars

threatens the health, safety or right to peaceful enjoy-
    ment of the premises by other residents; or (B) Any
    drug-related criminal activity on the premises;
24 C.F.R. § 966.4(f). See also 42 U.S.C. § 1437d(l)(6). Stevens
does not dispute that Henderson was a “guest” because
she concedes that her son, Alfernando, who was a House-
hold Member, invited him onto the premises. 9 “Control”
means only that the tenant has permitted access to the
premises. Rucker, 535 U.S. at 131. See also 24 C.F.R. § 5.100
(“Other person under the tenant’s control, for the
purposes of the definition of covered person and for parts
5, 882, 966, and 982 means that the person . . . is, or was
at the time of the activity in question, on the premises . . .
because of an invitation from the tenant or other
member of the household who has express or implied
authority to so consent on behalf of the tenant.”). The
Supreme Court noted that such “no fault” evictions are
a common practice in landlord-tenant law. Regardless
of knowledge, a tenant who cannot control criminal
activities by guests which threaten the safety of other
residents is herself a threat to the other residents. Rucker,
535 U.S. at 134. Moreover, the Court found that the

Other Sections in This Document (42)

Full Text