{
  "id": 4165109,
  "name": "TIMBER RIDGE, Plaintiff v. YUMEKA CALDWELL, Defendant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Ridge v. Caldwell",
  "decision_date": "2009-02-17",
  "docket_number": "No. COA08-689",
  "first_page": "452",
  "last_page": "455",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "195 N.C. App. 452"
    }
  ],
  "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": "635 S.E.2d 434",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        12636792
      ],
      "weight": 5,
      "year": 2006,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "436",
          "parenthetical": "quotations omitted"
        },
        {
          "page": "436"
        },
        {
          "page": "438"
        },
        {
          "page": "438",
          "parenthetical": "declining to reach appellant's remaining arguments when grant of summary ejectment held in error and reversed because evidence was insufficient to establish a proper Notice of Termination had been issued"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/se2d/635/0434-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "179 N.C. App. 621",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8238513
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 2006,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "623",
          "parenthetical": "quotations omitted"
        },
        {
          "page": "624"
        },
        {
          "page": "628"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/179/0621-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "369 S.E.2d 382",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1988,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "385"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "90 N.C. App. 535",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8525323
      ],
      "year": 1988,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "539"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/90/0535-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "260 S.E.2d 146",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1979,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "148"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "43 N.C. App. 648",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8553996
      ],
      "year": 1979,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "650"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/43/0648-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "24 C.F.R. \u00a7 247.4",
      "category": "laws:admin_compilation",
      "reporter": "C.F.R.",
      "weight": 6,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "a"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 427,
    "char_count": 7994,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.726,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.233431996996323e-08,
      "percentile": 0.47739482108802483
    },
    "sha256": "d7414cbd26767831fc77c9bebdff286e9c55459b17ff9d90a6be9361b64b6c3f",
    "simhash": "1:9f6a59059487bce6",
    "word_count": 1262
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:32:21.117771+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges McGEE and GEER concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "TIMBER RIDGE, Plaintiff v. YUMEKA CALDWELL, Defendant"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BRYANT, Judge.\nYumeka Caldwell (defendant) appeals from an order entered 18 February 2008 removing defendant and placing Timber Ridge Apartments (plaintiff) in possession of an apartment located at 7203B Barrington Drive, Charlotte, North Carolina. We reverse.\nFacts\nDefendant and her two children began residing in an apartment owned by plaintiff on 17 April 2007. On 30 August 2007, Officer Fishbeck was dispatched to defendant\u2019s apartment because of drug complaints by the apartment manager. Upon arrival, Officer Fishbeck knocked on the door and when defendant answered the door, advised defendant of the reason he was there and requested defendant\u2019s consent to search the apartment. Defendant consented.\nPlaintiff filed a Complaint in Summary Ejectment on 21 November 2007 and a judgment was announced in favor of plaintiff on that date. Defendant filed a written notice of appeal to district court on 17 December 2007.\nAt the district court hearing on 18 December 2007, Officer Fishbeck testified multiple clear plastic baggies that had the corners torn off of them were located in defendant\u2019s apartment on 30 August 2007. Also located in the apartment was a tom plastic baggie containing traces of marijuana. Officer Fishbeck stated he issued defendant a citation for possession of drug paraphernalia and notified the management of Timber Ridge Apartments of the citation. However, at the time of the hearing, defendant had not been convicted of possession of drug paraphernalia.\nDefendant offered testimony in opposition to plaintiff\u2019s evidence and stated the plastic baggie the officer showed her after searching the apartment on 30 August 2007 did not contain any traces of marijuana. Defendant also denied having multiple plastic baggies in her apartment, and stated that she had not been convicted of possession of drug paraphernalia.\nOn 18 February 2008, the district court entered judgment requiring defendant be removed from and plaintiff put into possession of the premises described in the complaint. Defendant appeals.\nOn appeal, defendant argues the trial court erred by: (I) failing to require plaintiff to prove defendant was provided adequate termination notice in compliance with applicable federal law; (II) failing to require that plaintiff prove defendant breached the lease agreement or was holding over beyond the end of the lease agreement; and (III) denying defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss at the close of plaintiff\u2019s evidence.\nI\nDefendant argues the trial court erred by failing to require plaintiff to prove defendant was provided adequate termination notice as required by 24 C.F.R. \u00a7 247.4. We agree.\nPursuant to 24 C.F.R. \u00a7 247.4 (a) (2008), prior to terminating the lease agreement of a tenant in a federally subsidized housing project, a landlord must provide notice to the tenant in the following manner:\n(a) Requisites of Termination Notice. The landlord\u2019s determination to terminate the tenancy shall be in writing and shall: (1) State that the tenancy is terminated on a date specified therein; (2) state the reasons for the landlord\u2019s action with enough specificity so as to enable the tenant to prepare a defense; (3) advise the tenant that if he or she remains in the leased unit on the date specified for termination, the landlord may seek to enforce the termination only by bringing a judicial action, at which time the tenant may present a defense; and (4) be served on the- tenant in the manner prescribed by paragraph (b) of this section.\nId.\n\u201c[A] tenant in a federally subsidized low-income housing project enjoys substantial procedural due process rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.\u201d Goler Metropolitan Apartments, Inc. v. Williams, 43 N.C. App. 648, 650, 260 S.E.2d 146, 148 (1979). The tenant has an entitlement to continued occupancy and cannot be evicted until certain procedural protections, such as notice, have been given to the tenant. Id. \u201cOur courts do not look with favor on lease forfeitures.\u201d Stanley v. Harvey, 90 N.C. App. 535, 539, 369 S.E.2d 382, 385 (1988). \u201cWhen termination of a lease depends upon notice, the notice must be given in strict compliance with the contract as to both time and contents.\u201d Lincoln Terrace Assocs., Ltd. v. Kelly, 179 N.C. App. 621, 623, 635 S.E.2d 434, 436 (2006) (quotations omitted).\nHere, no copy of the lease agreement was submitted into evidence. Plaintiff contends no evidence was submitted by either party that defendant\u2019s lease was federally subsidized and therefore entitled to the protections afforded tenants of federally subsidized housing. However, a review of plaintiff\u2019s Complaint in Summary Ejectment reveals plaintiff indicated by checking a box on the pre-printed form that defendant\u2019s lease was subsidized by the Section 8 housing program. Thus we conclude defendant\u2019s lease was entitled to the protections afforded tenants of federally subsidized housing. As such, plaintiff was required to comply with 24 C.F.R. \u00a7 247.4.\nIn Lincoln Terrace, the plaintiff failed to submit a copy of the Notice of Termination. 179 N.C. App. at 624, 635 S.E.2d at 436. The only evidence presented that a Notice of Termination had been issued to the defendant was testimony presented on behalf of the plaintiff by the apartment manager. Id. Although the trial court had granted summary ejectment on the plaintiff\u2019s behalf, this Court reversed the judgment of the trial court because there was no evidence in the record to support a finding that a Notice of Termination had been properly issued. Id. at 628, 635 S.E.2d at 438.\nIn the present case, defendant argued during the hearing that plaintiff failed to provide a notice of lease termination in compliance with the requirements of 24 C.F.R. \u00a7 247.4. Specifically, defendant argued the notice of lease termination did not provide defendant with sufficient detail to enable defendant to prepare a defense. A review of the transcript indicates no notice of termination was entered into the record. Also, no copy of plaintiff and defendant\u2019s lease agreement was entered into the record. The only indication that a termination notice had been issued was the testimony of Ms. English, the property manager, that a termination notice was issued to defendant.\nAs in Lincoln Terrace, there is no evidence in the record in the present case that plaintiff complied with the requirements of 24 C.F.R. \u00a7 247.4 by providing a proper Notice of Termination. Therefore, the trial court\u2019s grant of summary ejectment was in error and must be reversed. Because of our holding, we need not address defendant\u2019s remaining assignments of error. See Lincoln Terrace, 179 N.C. App. at 628, 635 S.E.2d at 438 (declining to reach appellant\u2019s remaining arguments when grant of summary ejectment held in error and reversed because evidence was insufficient to establish a proper Notice of Termination had been issued).\nReversed.\nJudges McGEE and GEER concur.\n. Section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended in 1974, establishes the federally subsidized housing assistance payments program commonly referred to as the Section 8 program. See 42 U.S.C.A. \u00a7 1437f (2008).",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BRYANT, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Caudle & Spears, P.A., by Natalie D. Potter and Christopher J. Loebsaek, for plaintiff-appellee.",
      "Legal Aid of North Carolina, Inc., by Chad Crockford, Theodore O. Fillette, and Linda S. Johnson, for defendant-appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "TIMBER RIDGE, Plaintiff v. YUMEKA CALDWELL, Defendant\nNo. COA08-689\n(Filed 17 February 2009)\nLandlord and Tenant\u2014 summary ejectment\u2014federally subsidized lease\u2014proper notice not given\nThe trial court erred by granting a summary ejectment where plaintiff checked a box on the complaint indicating that defendant\u2019s lease was federally subsidized, and there was no evidence in the record that plaintiff complied with federal regulations by providing a proper Notice of Termination.\nAppeal by defendant from judgment entered 18 February 2008 by Judge Thomas F. Moore, Jr. in Mecklenburg County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 3 December 2008.\nCaudle & Spears, P.A., by Natalie D. Potter and Christopher J. Loebsaek, for plaintiff-appellee.\nLegal Aid of North Carolina, Inc., by Chad Crockford, Theodore O. Fillette, and Linda S. Johnson, for defendant-appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0452-01",
  "first_page_order": 484,
  "last_page_order": 487
}
