HOUSING AUTHORITY v. THORPE, N.C., Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Attorney(S)

M. C. Burt, R. Michael Frank, Jack Greenberg, Sheila Rush, Edward V. Sparer of Counsel for defendant appellant. Daniel K. Edwards for plaintiff appellee.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The plaintiff, Housing Authority of the City of Durham, owned Apartment No. 38-G in McDougald Terrace, Durham, North Carolina. On November 11, 1964, the plaintiff and defendant, Joyce C. Thorpe, entered into a lease for the apartment for a term ending November 30, 1964, with automatic monthly renewals. The lease allowed either party to terminate by written notice 15 days prior to the term's end, without requiring a reason or hearing.

On August 12, 1965, the plaintiff gave the defendant written notice terminating the lease effective August 31, 1965. The defendant refused to vacate the apartment. The plaintiff initiated summary ejectment proceedings before a Justice of the Peace, resulting in a judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant appealed to the superior court, which held a de novo hearing, found the lease was validly terminated, and ruled that the defendant's continued occupancy was wrongful. The court ordered the defendant's removal, awarded possession to the plaintiff, damages, and costs. The defendant then appealed this judgment to the Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether a landlord may terminate a lease by written notice given 15 days prior to the last day of the term without providing a reason or holding a hearing.
Whether a tenant who holds over after lawful termination of a lease becomes a trespasser and whether the landlord may bring summary ejectment to remove the tenant and recover damages.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Murrill v. Palmer, 164 N.C. 50, 80 S.E. 55	Landlord entitled to summary ejectment when tenant holds over without right after lease termination.	Supported the court’s conclusion that the plaintiff could pursue summary ejectment after lease termination.
McGuinn v. McLain, 225 N.C. 750, 36 S.E.2d 377	Tenant holding over without right is liable for damages and costs due to wrongful retention of property.	Justified awarding damages and costs against the defendant for wrongful possession.
North Carolina General Statutes (G.S.) 42-26 and 42-32	Statutory authority for summary ejectment and recovery of damages and costs for wrongful retention of property.	Formed the statutory basis for the plaintiff’s summary ejectment action and damages award.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court reasoned that the defendant's right to occupy the apartment was strictly derived from the lease contract, which permitted termination by written notice 15 days before the term’s end without requiring a reason or hearing. The plaintiff validly exercised this right by giving proper written notice terminating the lease effective August 31, 1965. Upon termination, the defendant's continued occupancy was unlawful, rendering her a trespasser.

Under applicable North Carolina statutes and precedent, a landlord may bring summary ejectment against a tenant who holds over without right. The court emphasized that the landlord's motivation for termination was irrelevant to the legality of the termination. Because the defendant unlawfully retained possession, she was liable for damages and costs. The court found no error in the lower court’s judgment.

Holding and Implications

The court affirmed the judgment ordering the defendant's removal from the premises and awarding possession, damages, and costs to the plaintiff.

The decision directly restores possession of the property to the landlord and holds the tenant liable for wrongful retention damages and costs. The ruling confirms that a landlord may terminate a lease by written notice in strict compliance with the lease terms without providing reasons or holding hearings, and may pursue summary ejectment against holdover tenants. No new legal precedent was established beyond affirming existing statutory and case law principles.

Show full summary ...

HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF DURHAM v. JOYCE C. THORPE.

1. Landlord and Tenant 10 — Where a lease gives either party the right to terminate the lease by written notice 15 days prior to the last day of the term, apt notice by the landlord in accordance with the provisions of the lease terminates the term, and it is not required that the landlord give the tenant any reason for the termination of the lease or that the landlord hold any hearing upon the matter.

2. Ejectment 1 — Where a tenant holds over after the termination of the term without right, the tenant becomes a trespasser, and the landlord may bring summary ejectment to oust the tenant and to recover damages for the wrongful retention of the property and for costs of the action. G.S. 42-32.

MOORE, J., not sitting.

The plaintiff instituted summary ejectment proceedings before H. L. Townsend, Justice of the Peace, to remove the defendant from Apartment No. 38-G Ridgeway Avenue, McDougald Terrace, in the city of Durham. From a judgment in favor of the plaintiff in the Court of the Justice of the Peace, the defendant appealed to the superior court where the matter was heard de novo by the court without a jury. The court made findings of fact, each of which is supported by stipulations or by the evidence in the record. The material facts so found may be summarized as follows:

The plaintiff, a corporation organized and operating under the laws of the State of North Carolina, is the owner of the tract of land known as the McDougald Terrace Housing Project in the City of Durham, which includes Apartment No. 38-G Ridgeway Avenue. On 11 November 1964 the plaintiff and the defendant entered into a lease contract whereby the plaintiff leased to the defendant the said apartment for a term beginning 11 November 1964 and terminating at midnight 30 November 1964. The lease provided that it would be automatically renewed for successive terms of one month each. It further provided that the lease could be terminated by either party by giving to the other written notice of such termination 15 days prior to the last day of the term. There was no provision in the lease requiring the lessor to give to the lessee any reason for its decision to terminate the lease or requiring that any hearing be held by the plaintiff, or by any other person or agency, with respect to such decision.

The defendant occupied the apartment pursuant to the lease. On 12 August 1965 the plaintiff gave, and the defendant received, a written notice that the lease was cancelled effective 31 August 1965 and that at such time the plaintiff would be required to vacate the premises. The plaintiff gave no reason to the defendant for its decision to terminate the lease, advising the defendant that it was not required to do so. The defendant requested a hearing but the plaintiff did not conduct any hearing at which the defendant was present. Whatever may have been the plaintiff's reason for terminating the lease, it was neither that the defendant had engaged in efforts to organize the tenants of McDougald Terrace nor that she was elected president of a group which was organized in McDougald Terrace on 10 August 1965. The defendant refused to vacate the premises.

Upon these findings, the court concluded that the plaintiff terminated the lease as of 31 August 1965; that the occupancy of the premises by the defendant after such date was wrongful and in violation of the plaintiff's right to possession; that there was no duty upon the plaintiff to give to the defendant any reason for its termination of the lease or to hold any hearing upon the matter; and that the plaintiff was entitled to the possession of the premises and the defendant was in wrongful possession thereof.

The court, therefore, gave judgment that the defendant be removed from the premises, that the plaintiff be put in possession thereof and that the plaintiff have and recover from the defendant $58.00 plus a reasonable rent for the premises from and after 1 November 1965 until the same are vacated, together with the costs of the action. From this judgment the defendant appeals.

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff is the owner of the apartment in question. The defendant has no right to occupy it except insofar as such right is conferred upon her by the written lease which she and the plaintiff signed. This lease was terminated in accordance with its express provisions at midnight 31 August 1965. With its termination, all right of the defendant to occupy the plaintiff's property ceased. Since that date the defendant has been and is a trespasser upon the plaintiff's land.

The defendant having gone into possession as tenant of the plaintiff, and having held over without the right to do so after the termination of her tenancy, the plaintiff was entitled to bring summary ejectment proceedings against her to restore the plaintiff to the possession of that which belongs to it. G.S. 42-26; Murrill v. Palmer, 164 N.C. 50, 80 S.E. 55. It is immaterial what may have been the reason for the lessor's unwillingness to continue the relationship of landlord and tenant after the expiration of the term as provided in the lease.

Having continued to occupy the property of the plaintiff without right after 31 August 1965, the defendant, by reason of her continuing trespass, is liable to the plaintiff for damages due to her wrongful retention of its property and for the costs of the action. G.S. 42-32; McGuinn v. McLain, 225 N.C. 750, 36 S.E.2d 377; Lee, North Carolina Law of Landlord and Tenant, 18.

No error.