Landlords have the clear right to evict tenants from federally assisted low-income housing for violence and criminal activity that threatens or harms the health, safety, or peaceful enjoyment rights of other residents. But eviction becomes more problematic when those acts are committed not by tenants but their guests, especially when the guest acts without the tenant’s knowledge, consent, or involvement. 

The controversy came to a head in 2002 when the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a provision of the federal Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 [42 U.S.C. 1437d(l)(6)] authorizing PHAs to evict innocent tenants for the drug-related activity of their household members or guests [HUD v. Rucker, 535 U.S. 125, 122 S.Ct. 1230, 152 L.Ed.2d 258 (2002)]. 

While Rucker deals with drug-related activity, PHAs have extended the concept of holding tenants strictly liable for their guests to other forms of dangerous criminal activity. Accordingly, “no-fault” eviction clauses have become a staple of PHA leases. However, limits apply. Here are two recent cases illustrating the factors courts consider in deciding whether to enforce “no-fault” against a non-culpable tenant for the criminal violence of a guest.   

PHA Can Evict for Shooting by Person Under Tenant’s Control

What the Lease Says: The Housing Authority of the City of Pittsburgh (HACP) lease requires a tenant:

[t]o assure that no 'Covered Person' engage in ... [a]ny criminal activity on or off the Premises that threatens the health, safety, or right to peaceful enjoyment of any HACP community by members of the Household, Guests, other Tenants or employees of HACP ... .

The lease also includes a no-fault eviction clause providing that a Covered Person’s criminal conduct at the tenant’s unit is a material breach justifying lease termination. It defines Covered Person as including a/an: 

• Tenant;
• Member of Tenant’s Household;
• Guest; or
• Other Person Under the Tenant’s Control (OPTC) “who is, or was at the time of the activity in question on the Premises ... because of an invitation from Tenant or another member of the Household who has express or implied consent on behalf of Tenant.”

What Happened: A tenant holds an open-house party in her apartment for a few friends to celebrate her 59^th birthday. The festivities take a tragic turn when a non-resident visiting the mother of his child in a neighboring unit wanders into the party and fatally shoots a guest. HACP seeks to evict the tenant for violating the no-fault clause of her lease. The tenant denies responsibility for the incident, contending that the shooter was an unauthorized occupant while noting that she was actually nicked by one of the bullets. 

The trial court sides with HACP, finding that the shooter was a Covered Person for whom the tenant is strictly liable. But the appeals court rules that the tenant had no control over the shooter’s conduct setting up a final showdown in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.  

Ruling: In a split decision, the high court holds that HACP has grounds for “no-fault eviction” due to the conduct of a third party.

Reasoning: The shooter clearly engaged in “criminal activity” in the tenant’s apartment. But was he a “Covered Person” for whom the tenant was strictly liable? While acknowledging that he wasn’t a Guest because the tenant didn’t directly invite him to the unit, the Court found that the shooter was an OPTC because he was on the “Premises” at another tenant’s invitation. In other words, an invitation to the Premises is an invitation to the Units of the Premises. “This also means an invitation from one Unit on the Premises to another Unit is an invitation to stay or remain on the Premises.” In support of this reasoning, the Court noted that the party was an open house and the testimony suggested that it “was a common enough practice for individuals in the community to arrive at a Unit unannounced to wish happy birthday and enjoy some food.” Bottom Line: The shooter was at the tenant’s unit at her invitation “at the time of the conduct in question,” making him an OPTC for whom she was strictly liable [Hous. Auth. v. Nash, 2025 Pa. LEXIS 1496, 2025 LX 439080, 2025 WL 2732608].

PHA Can’t Evict Tenant Who Cures No-Fault Eviction Violation

What the Lease Says: The lease of a long-term Hawai'i Public Housing Authority (HPHA) tenant provides that:  

Tenant shall assure that no Tenant, member of Tenant's household, guest or visitor of the Tenant or member of the household or any other person under the Tenant's control engages in: (1) any criminal activity or conduct that threatens the health, safety or right to peaceful enjoyment of the premises by other residents; (2) Any drug-related criminal activity on or off the premises; or (3) The use of marijuana, even if its use is pursuant to a lawful prescription under state law.

The lease also provides for no-fault eviction if the tenant doesn’t adhere to the guests clause and other material terms of the lease. 

What Happened: A guest staying in his mother-in-law’s apartment gets into a verbal confrontation with a downstairs neighbor. Things escalate and the guest hits the neighbor on the head with a baseball bat causing serious injury. Appalled at what happened, the tenant immediately kicks her son-in-law out and forbids him from coming back ever again. The son-in-law never returns. HPHA sues to evict the tenant for allowing a guest to engage in criminal conduct that endangered other tenants’ health and safety. The tenant claims she cured the violation by permanently barring her son-in-law from returning, but HPHA contends that the violation is uncurable since the assault and resulting injuries can’t be undone. HPHA wins in lower court but loses on appeal, and the case reaches the state’s highest court.     

Ruling: The Hawaii Supreme Court rules that the tenant cured the violation and reinstates her tenancy.

Reasoning: The authority of PHAs to evict tenants for the criminal conduct of guests is discretionary, not mandatory. PHAs may also grant tenants the opportunity to cure their violations. In this case, it was necessary to look not just to the lease but also HPHA’s own Admissions and Continuing Occupancy Policy (ACOP) listing different kinds of lease violations and how much time, if any, tenants have to cure them. The ACOP listed violations of a lease provision “that potentially threaten the health or safety of other residents” as carrying a cure period of 24 hours. This belied HPHA’s assertion that the violation was uncurable because the assault couldn’t be undone. Not only was the violation curable, but the tenant did cure it by kicking her son-in-law off the property within the 24-hour cure period. The cure was effective because the son-in-law never came back. Bottom Line: Eviction was unwarranted [Bell v. Hawai'i Pub. Hous. Auth., 156 Haw. 1, 568 P.3d 61, 2025 Haw. LEXIS 92, 2025 LX 21022, 2025 WL 1039265].

Takeaway

Despite Rucker, no-fault eviction for the criminal activity of a guest isn’t a slam dunk. Rucker allows but doesn’t require PHAs to evict innocent tenants for dangerous crimes of guests and household members. And because no-fault eviction is discretionary, it’s also subject to review. In considering whether PHAs properly exercised their discretion, courts and administrative tribunals consider: 

• Whether the third person for whom the tenant is being held accountable actually committed the criminal activity triggering the right to no-fault eviction; 
• Whether the third person was a household member, guest, or person under the tenant’s control;
• Whether the third person was present at the unit at the tenant’s invitation at the time of the crime in question; 
• The seriousness of the criminal act; 
• Whether the PHA provided proper notice of eviction and complied with all applicable eviction procedures and protocols;
• Whether the violation was curable under the PHA’s protocols; and
• Whether the tenant actually cured the violation effectively and in time.