Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Underwood v. Greater Gadsden Housing Authority
Citations: 789 So. 2d 867; 2000 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 520; 2000 WL 1134653Docket: 2990400
Court: Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama; August 11, 2000; Alabama; State Appellate Court
Kendra Underwood appeals a trial court judgment favoring the Greater Gadsden Housing Authority regarding her tenancy termination. In February 1999, she received notice of lease termination due to allowing Gerald Kidd, listed on a "banned" or "no trespassing" list, into her apartment. Following an unlawful detainer action filed by the Housing Authority in April 1999, the district court ruled against Underwood. She appealed for a trial de novo in May 1999, requesting a jury trial, which resulted in a verdict for the Housing Authority in August 1999. Underwood filed a post-judgment motion for a judgment as a matter of law or a new trial, claiming the Housing Authority's no trespassing list was unconstitutional and that she had not been adequately notified of Kidd's status. This motion was denied by operation of law. During the appeal, Underwood's first argument regarding the constitutionality of the no trespassing list was dismissed as it was not raised in a timely manner at trial. The court cited precedent stating that constitutional attacks must be timely presented. Her second argument asserted inadequate notice about Kidd's banned status in December 1998. The Housing Authority's notice on February 5, 1999, cited Underwood's violation for allowing Kidd into her apartment. The lease provision specified that tenants must not allow banned individuals in their dwelling after receiving notice of their status. The trial court instructed the jury that they must find substantial evidence of Underwood's knowledge of Kidd's banned status to determine if she violated her lease, allowing for eviction. If the Housing Authority fails to prove that Underwood received the legally required notice regarding Gerald Kidd's ban from her apartment, the verdict should favor Underwood. Kidd was placed on the "banned" list in November 1996, and Underwood acknowledged awareness of this. However, Kidd testified that he informed Underwood when his ban expired in November 1998 but did not notify her when it was reinstated in December 1998, assuming the Housing Authority would do so. Nalda Childs, the complex manager, stated she typically informs residents about individuals on the banned list but was unaware of Kidd’s re-banning until after a February 2, 1999 incident. Underwood claimed she would not have allowed Kidd into her apartment if she had known he was banned, fearing lease termination and homelessness. The court noted that a jury's verdict is presumed correct unless it significantly diverges from the evidence. Since there was no proof that Underwood was notified of Kidd's ban before the incident, the jury's verdict in favor of the Housing Authority lacked evidentiary support. Consequently, the trial court's judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings. Yates, J. concurs; Robertson, P.J. and Thompson, J. concur in the result; Crawley, J. dissents.