AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• Tenant entered a one-year lease with Landlord beginning July 1, 2009, under the Section 8 housing program. Tenant was required to pay a $700 security deposit and $92 monthly rent, with the federal government covering the remainder. Tenant made partial security deposit payments and was late on July and August rent payments but was current by October 2009. Landlord filed for restitution of the premises in August 2009, alleging Tenant failed to fully pay the security deposit and rent for June, July, and August (paras 2-6).

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County: Affirmed metropolitan court judgment awarding Landlord restitution of premises and attorney fees, based on Tenant's failure to timely pay rent and a portion of the security deposit (para 1).
• Metropolitan Court: Judgment for Landlord, finding Tenant's late payments constituted a serious violation of the lease (para 8).

Parties' Submissions

• Landlord: Argued Tenant breached the lease by failing to pay the full security deposit and rent for June, July, and August on time, constituting a serious violation of the lease terms (paras 6, 8).
• Tenant: Contended that the lease termination did not comply with federal requirements, argued against the relevance of her criminal background in court, claimed retaliation by Landlord for a plumbing complaint, and disputed the award of attorney fees to Landlord (paras 6, 9).

Legal Issues

• Whether Tenant's late payments constituted a serious violation of the lease justifying termination under the Section 8 housing program (paras 14, 19-20).
• Whether the metropolitan court erred in considering Tenant's criminal background and in awarding attorney fees to Landlord (paras 9, 30).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's order affirming the metropolitan court's judgment for restitution in favor of Landlord, remanding the matter for further proceedings (para 31).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, per Judge Timothy L. Garcia, with Chief Judge Celia Foy Castillo and Judge Linda M. Vanzi concurring, found that:
  Tenant's late payments did not constitute a serious violation of the lease under the Section 8 housing program, as there was no evidence that these late payments significantly affected Landlord's property or economic interests (paras 24-26).
  The Lease's terms did not specify a deadline for the security deposit payment, and Tenant's delay in paying the full security deposit did not have a significant or material adverse effect on Landlord (para 26).
  The public policy behind the Section 8 housing program aims to protect financially disadvantaged tenants, suggesting a higher standard for landlords seeking eviction (para 27).
  The Lease explicitly stated that termination for "other good cause" was not allowed during the first one-year term, and the court found no basis for termination under this provision (para 28).
  The Court did not find substantial evidence to support Tenant's retaliation counterclaim but reversed the award of attorney fees to Landlord, remanding for a redetermination of fees in favor of the prevailing party (paras 29-30).