{ "id": 4156521, "name": "DURHAM HOUSING AUTHORITY, Plaintiff v. A. LARRY PARTEE, Defendant", "name_abbreviation": "Durham Housing Authority v. Partee", "decision_date": "2008-03-18", "docket_number": "No. COA07-581", "first_page": "388", "last_page": "393", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "189 N.C. App. 388" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "645 S.E.2d 132", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12638441 ], "year": 2007, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "135" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/645/0132-01" ] }, { "cite": "645 S.E.2d 810", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12638630 ], "year": 2007, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "816", "parenthetical": "citations, brackets and quotation marks omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/645/0810-01" ] }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14435", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(a)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "24 C.F.R. \u00a7 982.501", "category": "laws:admin_compilation", "reporter": "C.F.R.", "year": 2006, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "183 N.C. App. 415", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8203739 ], "year": 2007, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "418" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/183/0415-01" ] }, { "cite": "549 S.E.2d 587", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "588", "parenthetical": "citation and quotation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "145 N.C. App. 194", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11436685 ], "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "195", "parenthetical": "citation and quotation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/145/0194-01" ] }, { "cite": "184 N.C. App. 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8183788 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2007, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "10", "parenthetical": "citations, brackets and quotation marks omitted" }, { "page": "10" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/184/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-435", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "weight": 15, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(a)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "24 C.F.R. \u00a7 982.551", "category": "laws:admin_compilation", "reporter": "C.F.R.", "weight": 2, "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(e)" }, { "page": "(1)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 521, "char_count": 13119, "ocr_confidence": 0.756, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.1353694752087863 }, "sha256": "33586c4ffdd06f4e6c76e69e7b0b5fac9658c4974c685e891769d2b1ee9b7959", "simhash": "1:8fe2f94277af67e6", "word_count": 2099 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:47:52.494477+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges TYSON and JACKSON concur." ], "parties": [ "DURHAM HOUSING AUTHORITY, Plaintiff v. A. LARRY PARTEE, Defendant" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "STROUD, Judge.\nPlaintiff appeals from an order summarily ejecting him from the dwelling located at 500 Pickwick Trail, Apartment 321, Durham, North Carolina, and denying his counterclaim for restoration of his Section 8 rental assistance benefits. On review, we conclude that the trial court\u2019s findings of fact were supported by competent evidence and that those findings of fact supported the trial court\u2019s conclusions of law. Accordingly, we affirm.\nI. Background\nPlaintiff received Section 8 rental assistance from the Durham Housing Authority (DHA) for his residence at 500 Pickwick Trail, Apartment 321, at Preiss-Steele Place in Durham, North Carolina. Among several conditions of continued receipt of Section 8 benefits, plaintiff was not allowed to seriously violate his lease, 24 C.F.R. \u00a7 982.551(e) (2006), or \u201cengage in . . . criminal activity that threatened] the . . . right to peaceful enjoyment of other residents[,]\u201d 24 C.F.R. \u00a7 982.551(1) (2006).\nIn or around July of 2006, defendant advertised for sale and sold copies of movies on DVD at the Priess-Steele property. Because those DVDs did not bear the name of their true manufacturers, plaintiff was charged with violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-435.\nBy a letter dated 31 July 2006, defendant received notice from the manager of Preiss-Steele Place that he was required to vacate his apartment by 31 August 2006 because his advertising and attempted sale of the mislabeled DVDs violated N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-435, an illegal act which resulted in violation of his lease. By a letter dated 15 August 2006, DBA notified defendant that his Section 8 rental assistance would be terminated because his violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-435 was a \u201cserious . . . violation of the lease,\u201d and also a \u201ccriminal activity that threaten[ed] the . . . right to peaceful, enjoyment of other residentsf.]\u201d\nOn or about 8 September 2006, plaintiff filed a complaint in Small Claims Court, Durham County. The complaint sought summary ejectment of defendant on the basis that defendant had breached his lease agreement by violating N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-435.\nOn or about 17 September 2006, DHA held an informal hearing and affirmed the termination of defendant\u2019s Section 8 rental assistanee. On or about 19 September 2006, the small claims court found that \u201cthe plaintiff has failed to prove the case by the greater weight of the evidenced\u201d and entered an order dismissing the complaint with prejudice. Plaintiff filed notice of appeal to District Court, Durham County on or about 26 September 2006.\nIn a motion filed with the district court on or about 6 October 2006, defendant counterclaimed for restoration of his Section 8 benefits, alleging that the termination was \u201ccontrary to all evidence, and a violation of due process of law[.]\u201d In the same motion, defendant moved for dismissal of plaintiffs summary ejectment complaint alleging: (1) there was no evidence that defendant had sold the DVDs for commercial gain or financial advantage, therefore plaintiff had failed to prove one of the essential elements of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-435; and (2) alternatively, even if defendant was found to have violated N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-435, there was no evidence that the activities of defendant impaired the physical or social environment of PreissSteele Place.\nA bench trial was held on or about 7 December 2006. The trial court found that defendant possessed, advertised and sold DVDs which did not show the name of the true manufacturer. Accordingly, the trial court concluded that defendant had violated N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-435(a), and in so doing had violated his lease agreement. Defendant was therefore ordered to immediately vacate the dwelling unit located at 500 Pickwick Trail, Apartment 321, Durham, North Carolina. The trial court also concluded that defendant had seriously breached the lease agreement and engaged in criminal activity that threatened the peaceful enjoyment of other residents, which were proper grounds for termination of Section 8 benefits. Accordingly, the trial court denied defendant\u2019s counterclaim for restoration of Section 8 housing assistance benefits. Defendant appeals.\nII. Standard of Review\nAt a bench trial, \u201cthe trial judge considers the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom. If different inferences may be drawn from the evidence, the trial judge determines which inferences shall be drawn and which shall be rejected.\u201d Terry\u2019s Floor Fashions, Inc. v. Crown Gen. Contr\u2019rs, Inc., 184 N.C. App. 1, 10, 645 S.E.2d 810, 816 (2007) (citations, brackets and quotation marks omitted). On review of a bench trial, \u201cthe appellate courts are bound by the trial courts\u2019 findings of fact where there is some evidence to support those findings, even though the evidence might sustain findings to the contrary,\u201d Cardwell v. Henry, 145 N.C. App. 194, 195, 549 S.E.2d 587, 588 (2001) (citation and quotation omitted), but \u201c[t]he trial court\u2019s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.\u201d Kraft v. Town of Mount Olive, 183 N.C. App. 415, 418, 645 S.E.2d 132, 135 (2007).\nIII. Analysis\nDefendant argues that the trial court erred when it: (1) found that defendant violated N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-435, because there was no evidence that defendant sold, advertised, or intended to profit from the DVDs in his possession; (2) concluded that defendant\u2019s violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-435 was a breach of his lease and that defendant should be evicted on that basis; and (3) concluded that defendant\u2019s Section 8 housing benefits were properly terminated because defendant\u2019s violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-435 was a serious breach of his lease and also interfered with the peaceful enjoyment of other residents.\n. A. Violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-435\n\u201cFindings of fact supported by competent evidence are binding on appeal [from a bench trial], notwithstanding the existence of contradictory evidence.\u201d Terry\u2019s Floor Fashions, Inc., 184 N.C. App. at 10, 645 S.E.2d at 816. The trial court found that defendant advertised DVDs. The record contains a copy of a flyer posted by defendant at Preiss-Steele Place, which bore the caption \u201cMovies Available\u201d and listed twenty-five movie titles, and had defendant\u2019s phone number written vertically across the bottom on easy-to-tear strips. This is competent evidence that defendant advertised DVDs, and the trial court did not err in so finding.\nThe trial court further found that defendant sold DVDs. A witness testified that defendant stated that he could make a copy of a movie named Madea\u2019s Family Reunion-, thereafter he delivered a DVD copy of the movie to the witness in exchange for fifteen dollars. This is competent evidence that defendant sold DVDs, and the trial court did not err in so finding.\nIn concluding that defendant\u2019s advertising and sale of the DVDs violated N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-435, the trial court implicitly found that defendant advertised and sold the DVDs for financial gain. Defendant\u2019s purpose of financial gain can be inferred from his agreement to make an illegal DVD copy of a movie and his sale of the DVD for fifteen dollars. The trial court\u2019s conclusion that defendant violated N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-435 was supported by its findings of fact on all the essential elements. The trial court did not err in so concluding.\nB. Eviction and Termination of Benefits\nDefendant contends that even if the trial court correctly concluded that defendant violated N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-435, it erred when it concluded that defendant\u2019s violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-435 was a breach of his lease, for which defendant could be evicted, and was also both a serious breach of his lease and a violation of the federal regulations governing participation in the Section 8 program, for which his Section 8 housing benefits could be terminated, because no evidence was presented that anyone was disturbed by any alleged illegal activity on the part of defendant.\nDefendant\u2019s lease allowed the management of the apartment complex to terminate the lease for \u201cparticipation ... in any illegal or other activity . . . which impairs the physical or social environment\u201d of the apartment complex. We believe that the lease could be reasonably interpreted to allow termination of the lease for any illegal activity or for any other activity which impaired the physical or social environment of the apartment complex. Defendant\u2019s proposed interpretation of the lease would make an illegal activity acceptable if the particular illegal activity actually enhances the physical or social environment of the complex. Indeed, defendant argues that his activity did enhance the social environment of the complex. We hold that the trial court was not required to find as fact that defendant\u2019s illegal activity also impaired the physical or social environment of the apartment complex in order to conclude the lease had been breached. It was sufficient for the trial court to find that the defendant\u2019s activity was illegal.\nDefendant assigned error to the trial court\u2019s denial of his counterclaim for the restoration of his Section 8 housing assistance benefits, but cited no authority in the brief in support of the argument. This assignment of error is therefore deemed abandoned. See N.C.R. App. P. 28(b)(6).\nAffirmed.\nJudges TYSON and JACKSON concur.\n. See 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 1437f (2006); 24 C.F.R. \u00a7 982.501 (2006). \u201cSection 8\u201d is a federal program which subsidizes rental payments for low-income tenants. \u2022\n. Defendant\u2019s lease read, in pertinent part:\nManagement may terminate this Lease upon the occurrence of... the conduct or participation of a member of Resident\u2019s household in any illegal or other activity within or outside Preiss-Steele Place which impairs the physical or social environment of Preiss-Steele Place or the safety of members of Resident\u2019s household or other members of households in Preiss-Steele Place].]\n(Emphasis added.)\n. A person is guilty of failure to disclose the origin of an article when, for commercial advantage or private financial gain, the person knowingly advertises or offers for sale or resale, or sells or resells, or causes the rental, sale, or resale, or rents,' or manufactures, or possesses for these purposes, any article, the packaging, cover, box, jacket, or label of which does not clearly and conspicuously disclose the actual true name and address of the manufacturer of the article and the name of the actual author, artist, performer, producer, programmer, or group.\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14435(a) (2005).", "type": "majority", "author": "STROUD, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "The Banks Law Firm, P.A. by John Roseboro, for plaintiffappellee.", "Daniel F. Read for defendant-appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "DURHAM HOUSING AUTHORITY, Plaintiff v. A. LARRY PARTEE, Defendant\nNo. COA07-581\n(Filed 18 March 2008)\n1. Public Assistance\u2014 Section 8 rental assistance \u2014 breach of lease contract \u2014 summary ejectment \u2014 violation of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 14-435\nThe trial court did not err in a summary ejectment case based on a breach of lease contract for Section 8 termination by finding that defendant violated N.C.G.S. \u00a7 14-435 even though he contends there was no evidence that he sold, advertised, or intended to profit from the DVDs in his possession that did not show the name of the true manufacturer because: (1) there was competent evidence that defendant advertised and sold DVDs; (2) the trial court implicitly found that defendant advertised and sold the DVDs for financial gain by concluding that defendant\u2019s advertising and sale of the DVDs violated N.C.G.S. \u00a7 14-435; and (3) defendant\u2019s purpose of financial gain can be inferred from his agreement to make an illegal DVD copy of a movie.\n2. Public Assistance\u2014 Section 8 rental assistance \u2014 breach of lease contract \u2014 illegal activity \u2014 finding illegal activity impaired physical or social environment not required\nThe trial court did not err in a summary ejectment case by concluding that defendant\u2019s violation of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 14-435 was a breach of his Section 8 housing lease and that defendant should be evicted on that basis because: (1) defendant\u2019s lease could reasonably be interpreted to allow the management of the apartment complex to terminate the lease for participation in any illegal activity or for any other activity which impaired the physical or social environment of the apartment complex; and (2) it was sufficient for the trial court to find defendant\u2019s activity was illegal, without finding as fact that defendant\u2019s illegal activity also impaired the physical or social environment of the apartment complex, in order to conclude the lease had been breached.\n3. Appeal and Error\u2014 preservation of issues \u2014 failure to cite authority\nAlthough defendant assigned error to the trial court\u2019s denial of his counterclaim for the restoration of his Section 8 housing assistance benefits, this assignment of error is overruled because defendant failed to cite authority in support of this argument as required by N.C. R. App. P. 28(b)(6).\nAppeal by defendant from judgment entered 3 January 2007 by Judge David Q. LaBarre in District Court, Durham County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 15 November 2007.\nThe Banks Law Firm, P.A. by John Roseboro, for plaintiffappellee.\nDaniel F. Read for defendant-appellant." }, "file_name": "0388-01", "first_page_order": 420, "last_page_order": 425 }