Tenant Cure by Permanent Exclusion of Criminal Guests under HPHA’s ACOP

Introduction

This commentary examines the Supreme Court of Hawaiʻi’s April 8, 2025 decision in Bell v. Hawaiʻi Public Housing Authority (HPHA). Blossom Bell (“Bell”), a long‐term public housing tenant, faced eviction after her son‐in‐law, Daniel Lambert, physically assaulted a neighboring tenant. The central question was whether Bell could “cure” her lease violation by permanently barring Lambert from her unit—and whether the Hawaiʻi Eviction Board (“Board”) acted properly under HPHA’s Admissions and Continued Occupancy Policy (“ACOP”) and federal precedent. The parties agreed that cure‐period rules in Chapter 12, Section C of the ACOP governed the remand proceedings. After a split Board, a circuit court reversal, and an appeal to the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court, the Court affirmed reinstatement of Bell’s lease.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court held that (1) under Rucker v. HUD (535 U.S. 125, 2002), public housing authorities retain discretion to consider whether a tenant has taken all reasonable steps to mitigate or cure a criminal‐activity lease breach; (2) HPHA had agreed on remand to apply ACOP cure provisions; (3) Bell’s breach—allowing a guest whose conduct threatened tenant safety—fell into ACOP’s “any other violation” category (9th category), which carries a 30-day cure window; (4) Bell cured the breach within hours by permanently excluding Lambert; and (5) the Board’s ruling that only “undoing” the assault would cure the breach was arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court therefore affirmed the circuit court’s judgment reinstating Bell’s tenancy.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Department of Housing & Urban Development v. Rucker (535 U.S. 125, 2002): Established that § 1437d(l)(6) imposes strict liability evictions for tenant, household, or guest criminal activity, but leaves eviction decisions to local housing authorities’ discretion to weigh crime severity and tenant mitigation steps.
Scarborough v. Winn Residential (890 A.2d 249, D.C. 2006): Held that D.C.’s mandatory “no cure” policy for criminal‐activity breaches exceeded HUD’s discretionary eviction framework and refused to recognize tenant assurances as a cure for lethal guest conduct.
Housing Authority of Covington v. Turner (295 S.W.3d 123, Ky. Ct. App. 2009): Contrasted Scarborough by affirming a tenant’s right to remedy a drug‐related guest breach under state law when the tenant barred the guest, invoking Rucker’s savings clause for local discretion.
Kolio v. Hawaiʻi Public Housing Authority (135 Hawaiʻi 267, 349 P.3d 374, 2015): Emphasized that HPHA eviction decisions are discretionary, must be “liberally construed” in favor of tenants, and are reviewable for abuse of discretion and arbitrariness under HRS § 91-14(g).
Williams v. Hawaiʻi Housing Authority (5 Haw. App. 325, 690 P.2d 285, 1984): Pre‐Anti-Drug Abuse Act case upholding eviction for household members’ repeated violent incidents; cited for historical context but not controlling on cure issues.

Legal Reasoning

The Court first reaffirmed that under HRS § 91-14(g), it must determine whether the Board’s decision was affected by error of law, arbitrary or capricious, or an abuse of discretion. It then applied Rucker’s two‐step framework: (1) lease provisions imposing tenant responsibility for guest criminal acts are valid strict‐liability provisions; (2) eviction remains discretionary, permitting consideration of tenant mitigation or cure efforts.

Because the parties stipulated to apply ACOP Chapter 12, Section C, the Court examined the nine ACOP cure categories. It concluded Bell’s breach—her guest’s violent crime on premises—did not fit the first six (zero-day cure) or the seventh (“potential” threat, 24-hour cure) because the crime was completed. Rather, it fell into the ninth category (“any other violation”), which allows a 30-day cure absent justification for a shorter period. HPHA offered no justification for deviating to zero days. Bell’s immediate and permanent exclusion of Lambert, well within 24 hours, satisfied the ACOP cure requirement. The Board’s contrary ruling—that only reversing the assault could cure the breach—misidentified the relevant lease violation and imposed an impossible standard. That ruling was arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion.

Impact

This decision clarifies that public housing tenants may cure guest‐related criminal activity breaches by promptly and permanently excluding the offending visitor, so long as they act within the ACOP’s cure window. It affirms Rucker’s retention of local discretion, while enforcing fair cure‐period policies. Future eviction proceedings must heed the ACOP charts and avoid conflating a guest’s civil or criminal wrongdoing with the tenant’s curable lease violation. The ruling promotes predictability and tenant due process in federally subsidized housing.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Strict‐Liability Lease Provision: A clause making tenants responsible for guests’ criminal acts, regardless of tenant knowledge.
Cure vs. Incurable Violation: A violation is curable if the tenant can remedy the breach within a specified timeframe (e.g., ACOP’s 9th category: 30 days). A non-curable violation demands immediate termination (zero days) or is deemed unfixable.
ACOP Chapter 12, Section C: HPHA’s internal policy charting cure periods for nine breach categories, from methamphetamine manufacturing (0 days) to “any other violation” (30 days).
HRS § 91-14(g) Review: Hawaiʻi’s administrative‐law standard for reviewing agency decisions for legal error, lack of authority, arbitrary or capricious action, or abuse of discretion.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Bell v. HPHA establishes that a public housing tenant’s prompt, permanent exclusion of a criminal guest within a policy‐prescribed cure period satisfies lease cure requirements. It affirms local agencies’ discretion—endorsed by Rucker—while enforcing clear cure‐period guidelines under HPHA’s ACOP. By rejecting impossible “undo the crime” standards, the Court protects tenants’ rights to due process and predictable remediation in eviction proceedings, marking a significant precedent in public housing law.