C.F.R. » Title 24 » CHAPTER IX—OFFICE OF ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC AND INDIAN HOUSING, DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT › PART 982—SECTION 8 TENANT-BASED ASSISTANCE: HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHER PROGRAM › Subpart G—Leasing a Unit

24 C.F.R. § 982.310

Owner termination of tenancy

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Grounds. During the term of the lease, the owner may not terminate the tenancy except on the following grounds:

(1) Serious violation (including but not limited to failure to pay rent or other amounts due under the lease) or repeated violation of the terms and conditions of the lease;

(2) Violation of federal, State, or local law that imposes obligations on the tenant in connection with the occupancy or use of the premises; or

(3) Other good cause.

(b) Nonpayment by PHA: Not grounds for termination of tenancy. (1) The family is not responsible for payment of the portion of the rent to owner covered by the housing assistance payment under the HAP contract between the owner and the PHA.

(2) The PHA failure to pay the housing assistance payment to the owner is not a violation of the lease between the tenant and the owner. During the term of the lease the owner may not terminate the tenancy of the family for nonpayment of the PHA housing assistance payment.

(c) Criminal activity—(1) Evicting drug criminals due to drug crime on or near the premises. The lease must provide that drug-related criminal activity engaged in, on or near the premises by any tenant, household member, or guest, or such activity engaged in on the premises by any other person under the tenant's control, is grounds for the owner to terminate tenancy. In addition, the lease must provide that the owner may evict a family when the owner determines that a household member is illegally using a drug or when the owner determines that a pattern of illegal use of a drug interferes with the health, safety, or right to peaceful enjoyment of the premises by other residents.

(2) Evicting other criminals. (i) Threat to other residents. The lease must provide that the owner may terminate tenancy for any of the following types of criminal activity by a covered person:

(A) Any criminal activity that threatens the health, safety, or right to peaceful enjoyment of the premises by other residents (including property management staff residing on the premises);

(B) Any criminal activity that threatens the health, safety, or right to peaceful enjoyment of their residences by persons residing in the immediate vicinity of the premises; or

(C) Any violent criminal activity on or near the premises by a tenant, household member, or guest, or any such activity on the premises by any other person under the tenant's control.

(ii) Fugitive felon or parole violator. The lease must provide that the owner may terminate the tenancy if a tenant is:

(A) Fleeing to avoid prosecution, or custody or confinement after conviction, for a crime, or attempt to commit a crime, that is a felony under the laws of the place from which the individual flees, or that, in the case of the State of New Jersey, is a high misdemeanor; or

(B) Violating a condition of probation or parole imposed under Federal or State law.

(3) Evidence of criminal activity. The owner may terminate tenancy and evict by judicial action a family for criminal activity by a covered person in accordance with this section if the owner determines that the covered person has engaged in the criminal activity, regardless of whether the covered person has been arrested or convicted for such activity and without satisfying the standard of proof used for a criminal conviction. (See part 5, subpart J, of this title for provisions concerning access to criminal records.)

(d) Other good cause. (1) “Other good cause” for termination of tenancy by the owner may include, but is not limited to, any of the following examples:

(i) Failure by the family to accept the offer of a new lease or revision;

(ii) A family history of disturbance of neighbors or destruction of property, or of living or housekeeping habits resulting in damage to the unit or premises;

(iii) The owner's desire to use the unit for personal or family use, or for a purpose other than as a residential rental unit; or

(iv) A business or economic reason for termination of the tenancy (such as sale of the property, renovation of the unit, or desire to lease the unit at a higher rental).

(2) During the initial lease term, the owner may not terminate the tenancy for “other good cause”, unless the owner is terminating the tenancy because of something the family did or failed to do. For example, during this period, the owner may not terminate the tenancy for “other good cause” based on any of the following grounds: failure by the family to accept the offer of a new lease or revision; the owner's desire to use the unit for personal or family use, or for a purpose other than as a residential rental unit; or a business or economic reason for termination of the tenancy (see paragraph (d)(1)(iv) of this section).

(e) Owner notice—(1) Notice of grounds. (i) The owner must give the tenant a written notice that specifies the grounds for termination of tenancy during the term of the lease. The tenancy does not terminate before the owner has given this notice, and the notice must be given at or before commencement of the eviction action.

(ii) The notice of grounds may be included in, or may be combined with, any owner eviction notice to the tenant.

(2) Eviction notice. (i) Owner eviction notice means a notice to vacate, or a complaint or other initial pleading used under State or local law to commence an eviction action.

(ii) The owner must give the PHA a copy of any owner eviction notice to the tenant.

(f) Eviction by court action. The owner may only evict the tenant from the unit by instituting a court action.

(g) Regulations not applicable. 24 CFR part 247 (concerning evictions from certain subsidized and HUD-owned projects) does not apply to a tenancy assisted under this part 982.

(h) Termination of tenancy decisions—(1) General. If the law and regulation permit the owner to take an action but do not require action to be taken, the owner may take or not take the action in accordance with the owner's standards for eviction. The owner may consider all of the circumstances relevant to a particular eviction case, such as:

(i) The seriousness of the offending action;

(ii) The effect on the community of denial or termination or the failure of the owner to take such action;

(iii) The extent of participation by the leaseholder in the offending action;

(iv) The effect of denial of admission or termination of tenancy on household members not involved in the offending activity;

(v) The demand for assisted housing by families who will adhere to lease responsibilities;

(vi) The extent to which the leaseholder has shown personal responsibility and taken all reasonable steps to prevent or mitigate the offending action;

(vii) The effect of the owner's action on the integrity of the program.

(2) Exclusion of culpable household member. The owner may require a tenant to exclude a household member in order to continue to reside in the assisted unit, where that household member has participated in or been culpable for action or failure to act that warrants termination.

(3) Consideration of rehabilitation. In determining whether to terminate tenancy for illegal use of drugs or alcohol abuse by a household member who is no longer engaged in such behavior, the owner may consider whether such household member is participating in or has successfully completed a supervised drug or alcohol rehabilitation program, or has otherwise been rehabilitated successfully (42 U.S.C. 13661). For this purpose, the owner may require the tenant to submit evidence of the household member's current participation in, or successful completion of, a supervised drug or alcohol rehabilitation program or evidence of otherwise having been rehabilitated successfully.

(4) Nondiscrimination limitation and protection for victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking. The owner's termination of tenancy actions must be consistent with the fair housing and equal opportunity provisions of 24 CFR 5.105, and with the provisions for protection of victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking in 24 CFR part 5, subpart L (Protection for Victims of Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, or Stalking).

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 2577-0169) [60 FR 34695, July 3, 1995, as amended at 60 FR 45661, Sept. 1, 1995; 64 FR 26645, May 14, 1999; 64 FR 56913, Oct. 21, 1999; 66 FR 28804, May 24, 2001; 73 FR 72344, Nov. 28, 2008; 75 FR 66263, Oct. 27, 2010; 81 FR 80816, Nov. 16, 2016]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 53 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1997–2026 · leading case: Barrientos v. 1801-1825 MORTON LLC
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Barrientos v. 1801-1825 MORTON LLC, 583 F.3d 1197 (9th Cir. 2009). · cites it 11× “” 24 C.F.R. § 982.310 (d)(l)(iv). We must decide whether HUD’s “good cause” regulation preempts the operation of the City of Los Angeles’s eviction control ordinance.”
Columbus Park Hous. Corp. v. City of Kenosha, 2003 WI 143 (Wis. 2003). · cites it 6× “*74 24 C.F.R. § 982.310 (b)(2) (emphasis added).”
Indigo Real Est. Servs., Inc. v. Wadsworth, 280 P.3d 506 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 8× “24 C.F.R. § 982.310 (a). 3 “Other good cause” for termination is defined to include the “[f]ailure by the family to accept the offer of a new lease or revision” and a “family history of disturbance of neighbors or destruction of property or of *419 living or housekeeping habits…”
Powell v. Hous. Auth. of Pittsburgh, 812 A.2d 1201 (Pa. 2002). · cites it 7× “In doing so, the court set forth the terms of three provisions which concern a landlord's ability to end an assisted tenancy: § 1437f(d)(1)(B)(iii) of Section 8; a HUD regulation relating to Section 8, 24 C.F.R. § 982.310 ; and 42 U.S.C. § 1437d(1)(6), a subsection in the public…”
Cole v. Metro. Council HRA, 686 N.W.2d 334 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 6× “552 does not define what conduct constitutes a serious violation, 24 C.F.R. § 982.310 (2003) provides some insight as to what constitutes a serious violation.”
700 Bklyn Realty, LLC v. Latimi, 73 Misc. 3d 11 (N.Y. App. Term. 2021). · cites it 6× “An "owner eviction notice" is {**73 Misc 3d at 14}defined to include a "notice to vacate" (24 CFR 982.310 [e] [2] [i]). The notice required by RSC § 2524.”
Serna v. Gutierrez, 2013 NMCA 26 (N.M. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 6× “The applicable federal regulations relevant to the parties dispute are codified at 24 C.F.R. § 982.310 (2010) (owner termination of tenancy).”
Theodore Hayes v. Philip Harvey, 903 F.3d 32 (3rd Cir. 2018). · cites it 2× “24 C.F.R. § 982.310 (d)(1). 8 The definition applicable to ordinary project-based vouchers, while generally the same, is narrower in that good cause for those vouchers "does not include a business or economic reason or desire to use the unit for an individual, family, or…”
Umeka Lewis v. John J. Jaeger, Robert E. Boge, & the City of Dubuque, 818 N.W.2d 165 (Iowa 2012). · cites it 2× “24 C.F.R. § 982.310 (f). We have concluded, however, that Jaeger’s action in response to an order by a city official is not an eviction by him.”
Adjartey v. Cent. Div. of the Hous. Court Departmentand, 120 N.E.3d 297 (Mass. 2019). “239, § 8A"), a landlord's termination of the tenancy in violation of regulations applicable to those living in Section 8 housing, see 24 C.F.R. § 982.310 (2018), and a landlord's failure to properly terminate the tenancy, for instance, by failing to serve the tenant with a…”
Wilhite v. Scott Cnty. Hous. & Redevelopment Auth., 759 N.W.2d 252 (Minn. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 4× “24 C.F.R. § 982.310 (a)(1), (3) (2008). “Good cause” is defined as a family history of destruction of property or of living or housekeeping habits resulting in damage to the unit or premises.”
Cambridge Street Realty, LLC v. Stewart, 113 N.E.3d 303 (Mass. 2018). “11 This paragraph closely follows 24 C.F.R. § 982.310 (e)(1) (2016), the HUD regulation -- binding on the landlord by virtue of paragraph 8(a) of the HUD addendum -- whereby a landlord of a tenant holding a Section 8 voucher "must give the tenant a written notice that specifies…”
Show all 53 citing cases →
— 24 C.F.R. § 982.310(B) — 1 case
Cristina Castaneda v. Dannette Zuniga (Tex. App. 2015).
— 24 C.F.R. § 982.310(D) — 1 case
Cristina Castaneda v. Dannette Zuniga (Tex. App. 2015).
— 24 C.F.R. § 982.310(D)(2) — 1 case
Cristina Castaneda v. Dannette Zuniga (Tex. App. 2015).
— 24 C.F.R. § 982.310(a)(1) — 1 case
Serna v. Gutierrez, 2013 NMCA 26 (N.M. Ct. App. 2012). “The applicable federal regulations relevant to the parties dispute are codified at 24 C.F.R. § 982.310 (2010) (owner termination of tenancy).”
— 24 C.F.R. § 982.310(c)(1) — 1 case
Cole v. Metro. Council HRA, 686 N.W.2d 334 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004). “552 does not define what conduct constitutes a serious violation, 24 C.F.R. § 982.310 (2003) provides some insight as to what constitutes a serious violation.”
— 24 C.F.R. § 982.310(d) — 3 cases
Barrientos v. 1801-1825 MORTON LLC, 583 F.3d 1197 (9th Cir. 2009). “” 24 C.F.R. § 982.310 (d)(l)(iv). We must decide whether HUD’s “good cause” regulation preempts the operation of the City of Los Angeles’s eviction control ordinance.”
Barrientos v. 1801-1825 Morton LLC (9th Cir. 2009).
Crisales v. Estrada, 204 Cal. App. Supp. 4th 1 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012).
— 24 C.F.R. § 982.310(d)(1) — 1 case
Crisales v. Estrada, 204 Cal. App. Supp. 4th 1 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012).
— 24 C.F.R. § 982.310(d)(1)(h) — 1 case
Cole v. Metro. Council HRA, 686 N.W.2d 334 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004). “552 does not define what conduct constitutes a serious violation, 24 C.F.R. § 982.310 (2003) provides some insight as to what constitutes a serious violation.”
— 24 C.F.R. § 982.310(e)(1) — 1 case
Umeka Lewis v. John J. Jaeger, Robert E. Boge, & the City of Dubuque, 818 N.W.2d 165 (Iowa 2012). “24 C.F.R. § 982.310 (f). We have concluded, however, that Jaeger’s action in response to an order by a city official is not an eviction by him.”
— 24 C.F.R. § 982.310(e)(2)(ii) — 1 case
State ex rel. Rosolowski v. Scott, 2024 Ohio 2074 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.