8 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 653a
Landlord-tenant — Eviction — Noncompliance with lease — Action to evict tenant from student housing complex for allegedly breaching lease by failing to report drug use by housemates — Landlord failed to establish that tenant breached lease provision where evidence of drug use was found in two of townhouse’s bedrooms, which were not the tenant’s or under tenant’s care, custody or control — Landlord presented no evidence to tie tenant to evidence of marijuana use in common area of townhouse given facts that tenant was asleep in his own locked bedroom at time drug evidence was discovered, did not know housemates before they moved into townhouse, and rarely socialized with housemates — Eviction based on nothing but “guilt by association” dismissed
COUNT DE HOERNLE STUDENT VILLAGE (Palm Beach Community College Foundation), Plaintiff, vs. ANTHONY SANDERS, Defendant. County Court, 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County. Case No. MC 01-14061 RB. July 8, 2001. Donald W. Hafele, Judge. Counsel: Randall W. Henley, West Palm Beach. Anthony Sanders, Lake Worth.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE AND FINAL JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT
THIS CAUSE came before the Court for final hearing for eviction on July 6, 2001. The Plaintiff, COUNT DE HOERNLE STUDENT VILLAGE (Palm Beach Community College Foundation) was represented by Randall W. Henley, Esquire and the Defendant, ANTHONY SANDERS, appeared pro se. The witnesses called at the hearing were James Brock, who at the time the subject seven (7) day eviction notice was posted worked for Palm Beach Community College primarily in a capacity to assist the residents of the Student Village, and the Defendant, a twenty-two year old African-American man who lives in the Student Village and is a full time student at Florida Culinary Institute.1 After carefully reviewing the pleadings and the court file, including the lease, and hearing the testimony of the witness, the Court hereby dismisses this case and enters Final Judgment in favor of the Defendant, ANTHONY SANDERS.
The salient facts of this case are indeed compelling. The Defendant moved into the townhouse consisting of four (4) bedrooms in January, 2001. He testified that when he moved in he was new to the area having previously studied at another Florida Culinary Institute located in North Florida. Shortly after moving into the Student Village, he obtained a job as a restaurant chef in Delray Beach and his normal schedule consisted of, and continues to be, waking at 6:00 a.m., arriving at class at 7:00 a.m., returning to his residence at approximately 12:30 p.m., and either doing homework or taking a short nap before going to work at 2:00 p.m. His work schedule requires him to remain at the restaurant until 11:00 p.m. and sometimes as late as 2:00 a.m. He testified that he works five to six days a week and that when his schedule allows, he enjoys recreational activities such as basketball.
The Defendant testified that when he moved into the Student Village he did not know his two housemates. Apparently, an incident occurred in April, 2001 when the Defendant was visiting relatives in North Florida and was away for eight days which resulted in the eviction of one of the housemates. When another individual was placed in the townhouse, the Defendant did not know him either. The Defendant testified that he was not a drug user and he rarely socialized with any of his housemates. Importantly, none of the Defendant’s testimony was controverted by the Plaintiff.
On June 13, 2001, Mr. Brock testified that one of the Defendant’s housemates2 was seen throwing a firecracker outside of the townhouse. When Mr. Brock and a co-worker went to the townhouse to investigate, they apparently thought no one was home. Although the facts are not particularly clear, Mr. Brock and his co-worker gained entry into the townhouse and saw “evidence of marijuana use in a common area.” They allegedly then saw evidence of drugs in two of the bedrooms (neither of which were the Defendant’s) and ultimately found what they believed was cocaine and marijuana in one bedroom and marijuana in another. Mr. Brock and the co-worker then proceeded to the Defendant’s locked bedroom3, knocked on the door and Mr. Brock, using his key, opened the locked door to find the Defendant sleeping. The Defendant was abruptly awakened and questioned regarding the firecracker and the drugs found in the other bedrooms. He denied knowledge of either and no illicit substances were found in his room. The seven (7) day eviction notice directed to the Defendant was posted on his door on June 13, 2001, shortly after the above incident transpired. The Defendant testified that he is a high school graduate, has never been convicted of a felony and that the eviction hearing was his “first time in a courtroom.”
The grounds for eviction contained in the notice entitled “Seven-Day Notice of Noncompliance With No Opportunity To Cure” were as follows:
You are hereby notified that you(,) in violation of your lease and the Code of Conduct as set up in your Student Village Resident Life Handbook, specifically the Failure to Inform Section of your handbook that states…(‘)You are required to do the following: Submit maintenance requests in a timely manner, report security risks immediately, report serious or on-going violations of policy and/or law. (sic) Additionally, the possession, promotion, distribution, manufacturing, use or sale of illegal substances…(‘)
The Defendant denied any knowledge of drug use in the townhouse. In both his written response to the eviction proceeding and in his testimony at the hearing, he denied drug use and any involvement with his housemates as it concerned illicit substances. Although the Plaintiff did not introduce for the Court’s review the pertinent section(s) of the actual Student Village Resident Handbook, it did rely on the following two sections of the “Rules and Regulations” appended to the lease:
(1) No Resident, guest or other person allowed on the premises by Resident shall engage in any act intended to facilitate criminal activity, including drug-related activity, on or near the premises.
(2) Resident will not permit the premises to be used for, or to facilitate criminal activity, including drug-related criminal activity, regardless of whether the individual engaging in such activity is another Resident or guest.
The Plaintiff wholly failed to establish that the Defendant breached the aforestated provisions. Instead, the Plaintiff sought to evict the Defendant based solely on what allegedly was found in two bedrooms which unquestionably were not the Defendant’s or under the Defendant’s care, custody or control, as well as what was allegedly identified as “evidence of marijuana use” in what was identified as “a common area” of the townhouse. There was nothing whatsoever presented by the Plaintiff to tie the Defendant to this so-called “common area” evidence. This eviction proceeding is grounded on nothing less than the proverbial “guilt by association” with absolutely no facts to establish either a breach of lease or criminal conduct on the part of the Defendant. In fact, all of the testimony (even the testimony of the Plaintiff’s sole witness) was to the contrary as it concerned ANTHONY SANDERS. In this Court’s view, it is especially unfortunate that this type of unfounded action would stem from a college setting where fundamental due process concepts should be taught, emphasized and respected. While this Court shares any institution’s concerns regarding illicit drug use and the abuse of illegal substances throughout college campuses, we must not trample on the rights of our citizens in clearly overzealous attempts to combat these problems. What was done by the Plaintiff to this Defendant was plainly and fundamentally wrong. This is a case that does not require lengthy legal citations or extensive quotes from learned treatises. The Court has taken the time to write this Order in fervent hope that the Plaintiff’s procedures will improve and be more in line with fundamental due process considerations.4
This case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and Final Judgment is entered in favor of the Defendant.
__________________
1Although the Student Village primarily houses students from Palm Beach Community College, full-time students from other local colleges or similar institutions are permitted to reside there according to Mr. Brock.
2At the hearing the witnesses loosely referred to the other individuals being in the townhouse as roommates. Critical to this analysis, however, is the fact that each resident had his own bedroom.
3The testimony did not reveal whether the other two bedrooms were or were not locked when the Plaintiff’s employees performed their “search.”
4How potentially tragic the implications to this Defendant’s future may have been had he simply defaulted on this case or for whatever reason decided not to challenge the eviction proceeding. Obviously, this file (and any final judgment stemming therefrom) is public record and any prospective landlord, employer or other interested entity would have free access thereto.
* * *
