When and if a federally assisted tenant takes you to court, it’s a pretty good bet that eviction will be the primary issue. It’s also a pretty good bet that the focus of the case will be not only on what the tenant did or didn’t do to deserve eviction but also whether you complied with all HUD and other applicable eviction notice requirements. Here’s a scenario based on a recent case to illustrate the notice complications that can undermine an otherwise valid case to evict a tenant for not paying rent.  

Scenario: A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to Eviction

A North Carolina PHA learns that federally subsidized tenants Church and Jefferson underreported their household income. Here’s what happens next:  

April 22: The PHA sends a written notice to Church, but not Jefferson, stating that the monthly rent is increasing from $43 to $128 per month on May 1 due to an “Interim Certification.” 

July 11: When the tenants don’t pay the increased rent, the PHA sends Church, but not Jefferson, a letter saying that the lease will terminate in 10 days on July 21 due to nonpayment of rent; the letter also notifies Church of her right to file a grievance on the matter. 

July 21: The PHA sends a letter to both Church and Jefferson stating that “your lease is being terminated for repeated lease violations, failure to report income changes, failure to comply with rental obligations and repeated late payments.”

July 21: Later that same day, Church and Jefferson send the landlord a handwritten letter offering sincere apologies for their transgressions and asking for a chance to fix the situation so they can stay in the apartment. 

Aug. 3: The PHA holds an informal hearing that Church and Jefferson attend. 

Aug. 11: The PHA sends letters to both tenants to report that the decision to terminate for nonpayment of rent stands and that the lease will terminate in 10 days on Aug. 21.

The PHA files an eviction suit in state court on Aug. 30. The court issues an eviction order and the tenants appeal, claiming that the PHA didn’t furnish proper eviction notice under HUD regulations or the federal Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). The trial court sides with the PHA, and the case goes to North Carolina Appeals Court.

Issue 1: Termination Notice Under HUD Guidelines

HUD PHA rules (Section 966.4) set out six basic notice requirements that PHAs must meet to terminate the lease of a tenant for nonpayment of rent:

1. The lease termination notice must be in writing;
2. The PHA must provide the written notice within at least 30 days or shorter period required by state law or the lease agreement—in this case, the lease actually required 14 days’ notice of eviction for nonpayment of rent;
3. The notice must state the specific grounds for lease termination;
4. The notice must inform tenants of their right to reply;
5. The notice must inform tenants of their right to examine PHA documents directly relevant to the termination or eviction; and
6. The notice must also inform tenants of their right to request a hearing in accordance with the PHA’s grievance procedure. 

You Make the Call: Did the PHA violate HUD eviction notice rules?

The court said yes. 

Explanation: The PHA in this case gave the tenants two notices of lease termination due to alleged nonpayment of rent, effective in 10 days: The July 11 notice listed July 21 as the termination date and the Aug. 11 notice listed Aug. 21 as the date of termination. Thus, neither notice provided the 14 days’ notice required under the lease. Nor did the notices inform the tenants of their right to examine and make copies of documents related to the termination of the lease, as required by HUD guidelines.

Bottom line: The lower court was wrong to grant the PHA the eviction order.

Another SNAFU that the court didn’t mention was that the PHA sent the first eviction notice to one of the tenants but not the other. Nor is it clear from the decision whether the PHA included the information required by Rules #3 and #6 above in the termination notice.

Issue 2: Termination Notice Under VAWA

As a federally subsidized housing project, the PHA was also subject to VAWA, a federal law designed to protect victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, dating violence, and stalking from being thrown out of their homes. Among other things, VAWA requires PHAs to give tenants a “Notice of Occupancy Rights” explaining their rights under the law when serving them an eviction notice. 

You Make the Call: Did the PHA violate VAWA eviction notice rules?

The court said no. 

Explanation: While acknowledging that it didn’t give the tenants a VAWA notice, the PHA argued that it had no legal obligation to do so because the eviction wasn’t connected to domestic violence. The court agreed, noting that the VAWA duty to provide a Notice of Occupancy Rights kicks in only after rental applicants or tenants fill out and provide the landlord a certification form stating that they’re a victim of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking. Since the tenants didn’t do that, the PHA didn’t have to include a Notice of Occupancy Rights in its eviction notice. 

“We do not agree with Tenants’ claim Landlord was required to provide Notice of Occupancy Rights under the VAWA when the lease termination was based on non-payment of rent and there is no indication that either Tenant had any concerns regarding domestic violence,” the court concluded [Oxford Hous. Auth. v. Church, 2025 N.C. App. LEXIS 56, 911 S.E.2d 532, 2025 LX 57123, 2025 WL 546735].

Caveat: Courts Split on VAWA Notice for Non-Domestic Violence Evictions

The Oxford case goes against a 2019 California appeals court decision holding that the landlord’s VAWA duty to furnish tenants a Notice of Occupancy Rights does, in fact, apply to evictions for nonpayment of rent that aren’t connected to domestic violence, sexual assault, dating violence, and stalking. 

“The plain and commonsense meaning of the statutory language contained in [VAWA] requires VAWA notices to be served with any notice of termination,” according to the California court. “There is no language in the statute that would support a meaning that the VAWA notices only need to be served with notices of termination that are premised on domestic violence” [DHI Cherry Glen Assocs., L.P. v. Gutierrez, 46 Cal. App. 5th Supp. 1, 259 Cal. Rptr. 3d 410 (2019)].

Takeaway: How to Protect Yourself

Speak to your attorney to ensure that the eviction notices you serve meet the requirements of all laws and regulations pertaining to the kind of property you run, where it’s located, the grounds for eviction, and the type of tenant being evicted, including but not necessarily limited to: 

• HUD regulations and guidelines;
• State and local rental property laws;
• VAWA, fair housing, and other federal and state laws providing special protections to the tenant you’re targeting for eviction.