Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

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)
Effective Date
2011-12-01

Other Sections in This Document (42)

Full Text

1,615 chars
D.
  Stevens’ remaining issues merely restate arguments
she made in other contexts. Her main complaint is that
issues of fact remained on whether other violations of
her lease justified HASB’s eviction decision on other
grounds. She contends, for example, that a HASB em-
ployee told her she was required to provide information
regarding criminal convictions only for the three years
prior to the application. She argues that this evidence
goes to the issue of her honesty in filling out the applica-
tion. But she also falsely denied on her application that
she had “ever” previously lived in public housing. In
fact, she still owed money to HASB for her prior tenancy,
and would not have been allowed to move in without
paying that prior debt.
  Stevens also maintains that whether Broadnax lived
at the apartment was a genuine issue of material
fact because Ebony Harmon testified that Broadnax did
not live there and had stayed overnight only a few times.
But Harmon did not live at the apartment and did not
have personal knowledge of what happened there
every day. Stevens herself conceded that Broadnax regis-
tered his home monitoring device at her address for two
to three weeks and stayed there during that time, a clear
violation of the terms of her lease. Finally, Stevens denies
that she ever used drugs at her apartment, but does not
dispute that the police found two marijuana blunt
roaches on her countertop when they were called
there for a domestic dispute involving Broadnax. The
presence of illegal drugs in her apartment also violated
No. 10-2724                                             25