Interstate Realty Management Co. v. Price

Citations: 86 So. 3d 798; 2011 La.App. 4 Cir. 1131; 2012 La. App. LEXIS 285; 2012 WL 748296Docket: No. 2011-CA-1131

Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; March 6, 2012; Louisiana; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Defendants-Appellants Ora Price, Darryl Price, and Leonard Price appeal a judgment that granted a Rule to Evict filed by Plaintiff-Appellee Interstate Realty Management Company concerning their residence at Treasure Village Apartments in New Orleans. The management alleged that the Prices violated their lease by allowing unauthorized occupants, Oneal and Leroy Price, to reside at the premises without written approval, and accused them of engaging in criminal activities, including drug transactions. Following a drive-by shooting on December 5, 2010, which involved Leroy Price and resulted in property damage, the site manager issued a Notice of Infraction to Ora Price. At a subsequent meeting on December 10, the Prices displayed combative behavior, breaching lease terms requiring cooperation with management. On January 4, 2011, the management issued a 30-day Notice of Termination of Lease, effective February 4, 2011, citing the infractions. The Prices did not request a meeting to discuss the notice, despite claiming they had. After their federal suit was dismissed, Interstate filed a Rule to Evict on May 20, 2011. Following a trial on June 16, 2011, the court ruled in favor of the eviction. The Prices filed for written reasons for judgment and an appeal, which was granted a stay pending the appeal. The trial court's written reasons reiterated the lease obligations concerning criminal activity and cooperation with management.

The court found no credible evidence that the Prices requested a formal grievance hearing prior to the issuance of the Notice to Vacate, based on testimony from property manager Robin Maxfield. Evidence was presented showing that Oneal Price's Louisiana ID listed the contested address, and both a security incident report and a police report confirmed Leroy Price's residency there. The court examined the lease's "One Strike Policy," which allows for eviction based on criminal activity without requiring a conviction or arrest. Testimony from Kevin Johnson, a security officer, indicated ongoing criminal activity involving Oneal and Leroy Price, including a specific incident leading to Oneal's arrest. The trial court concluded that their actions violated the lease agreement, threatening the safety and peaceful enjoyment of the premises, and subsequently granted the eviction. The standard of review for factual findings is based on whether they are manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong, meaning appellate courts defer to trial court findings unless a clear error is evident.

The excerpt outlines legal principles regarding the standard of review for factual findings made by a trial court. It emphasizes that if two reasonable interpretations of the evidence exist, a fact-finder's choice cannot be deemed manifestly wrong. The reviewing court must defer to the trial court's credibility assessments and may not overturn findings that are reasonable based on the entire record, even if it would have weighed the evidence differently.

The Appellants argue that the trial court incorrectly granted the Rule to Evict, claiming violations of their federal rights and insufficient evidence supporting the eviction. They assert that Leroy Price was not part of Ora Price's family and challenge the credibility of witnesses who lacked personal knowledge of a shooting incident related to the allegations. Additionally, the Appellants allege the judgment was obtained through fraud and improper practices, asserting that no formal charges were filed against Leroy or Oneal Price regarding the incident.

The document cites La. C.C.P. art. 2004, defining "ill practices" as actions that deprive a litigant of legal rights, requiring the court to assess whether the party seeking annulment was prevented from asserting their claims. However, the record does not demonstrate that the Appellants were deprived of their legal rights under this article.

The Appellants also claim that grievance procedures were not followed, and no hearing occurred despite a request. They received a 30-day Notice of Termination of Lease on January 4, 2011, effective February 4, 2011, which allowed them to meet with the site manager. The trial court found that the Appellants did not request any further meetings beyond one held on December 10, 2010. Moreover, Interstate filed the Rule for Possession on May 20, 2011, indicating that the Appellants had proper notice and an opportunity to be heard before eviction proceedings commenced, in accordance with Article 4702.

The trial court's decision to grant the Rule to Evict was upheld, with no errors found in its factual conclusions or credibility assessments. The court established that the Appellants violated multiple lease terms, particularly those prohibiting criminal activity that endangers the safety and peaceful enjoyment of the residence. The Appellants' claim for a suspensive appeal was denied because they failed to respond to the Rule for Possession under oath, as required by Article 4735, which stipulates conditions for suspending eviction judgments. The court affirmed that ongoing rent payments do not negate lease violation evictions, especially since the eviction was based on violations rather than non-payment. The Appellants’ argument regarding a federal question was deemed unnecessary to address due to the dismissal of their federal suit. Testimony indicated the district court dismissed their federal claim as an eviction issue, which the Appellants have appealed, asserting it involves constitutional and civil rights. The One Strike Policy allowed the eviction without a required hearing, as it pertains to violent or criminal activity. Lastly, La.Code Civ. Proc. art. 4702 mandates a written notice to vacate prior to eviction, allowing five days for compliance.