Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Newhouse v. Settegast Heights Village Apts.
Citations: 717 S.W.2d 131; 1986 Tex. App. LEXIS 8178Docket: B14-85-983-CV
Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; August 7, 1986; Texas; State Appellate Court
Settegast Heights Village Apartments filed a forcible detainer suit against Margaret Newhouse to evict her after her lease expired. Newhouse appealed the Justice of the Peace court's decision to County Civil Court No. 3, which ruled in favor of the apartments. Upon further appeal to the Court of Appeals of Texas, the court addressed jurisdiction based on Texas Property Code Section 24.007, which restricts appeals on possession issues to residential properties. The court found sufficient evidence to conclude that Newhouse's apartment was used solely for residential purposes, noting that the apartments were federally subsidized under the Section 8 Housing Assistance program and that her lease explicitly required residential use. Since the appellee did not contest the residential use and only sought eviction based on the expired lease, the court reversed the trial court's judgment, allowing Newhouse to retain her tenancy. Jurisdiction to hear the appeal is established under Section 24.007 of the Property Code. Newhouse asserts that the trial court incorrectly evicted her, arguing the appellee failed to demonstrate good cause for the eviction, as mandated by the lease agreement and HUD regulations. The appellee, a recipient of federal subsidies through the Section 8 Housing Assistance Payments program, is bound by HUD eviction procedures. The lease agreement specifies that termination must adhere to HUD regulations, state law, and the lease's terms. The lease's Paragraph 2 allows for automatic renewal unless terminated as outlined in Paragraph 23, which allows termination only for tenant noncompliance, failure to meet obligations under state law, or other good cause, effective only at the end of a lease term. Evictions are further governed by 24 C.F.R. Part 247, which defines eviction and outlines permissible grounds for termination, emphasizing that a landlord may only terminate a tenancy for material noncompliance, failure to meet obligations, or other good cause. HUD's commentary on these regulations highlights the importance of tenant protections in subsidized housing, asserting that management's ability to evict must be balanced with tenants' rights to protections against arbitrary denial of benefits. Proposed 24 C.F.R. 450.3 outlines eviction notice requirements, emphasizing that a tenant has the right to lease renewal unless good cause is demonstrated. HUD's November 1981 handbook specifies that both tenants and owners may terminate tenancies, with tenants required to provide thirty days' written notice. Eviction by owners is permissible only for material non-compliance with the lease, violations of state landlord-tenant laws, or other good causes, which must be stated. Terminations for "other good cause" can only occur at the end of a lease term, and landlords cannot refuse lease renewal solely due to an expired term. The analysis concludes that the appellee (landlord) must adhere to HUD regulations, which require a valid reason for eviction beyond lease expiration. As the appellee failed to comply with both the lease and HUD regulations, the court reversed the trial court's judgment, allowing Newhouse to retain her tenancy.