The Maryland Court of Special Appeals has ruled that a landlord was entitled to evict a family because of drug-related criminal activity by one member of the household. Exacerbating the legal quandary before the court was that the household member who engaged in the illegal activity was a minor.

While this recent decision involved the Housing Authority for Prince George’s County, a public housing agency, the appellate ruling is the first in Maryland to address the eviction of tenants for drug-related criminal activity and, as such, it provides guidance as to how courts will likely apply these laws for non-governmental residential landlords.

It is common today for residential leases to contain language providing, “[i]f resident, resident’s family, employees, agents, guests, or invitees engage in, permit or facilitate any drug-related criminal activity on or about the premises or within the apartment community, resident will be deemed to have substantially and materially breached its lease and such breach being grounds to terminate resident’s occupancy of the premises.”

In this instance, the adult tenant signed a lease for public housing that contained that drug-related criminal activity provision. Her three minor children were listed as occupants on the lease. It is not in dispute that her minor son was arrested and charged with possession of marijuana.

The trial court errantly reasoned that “a juvenile is not involved in criminal activity per se because, although it’s alleged that he may commit a crime, it still – is handled in a juvenile proceeding which is, by its very nature, not criminal.” The boy’s possession of marijuana, the court concluded could not constitute a breach of the lease.

The appellate tribunal reversed the court error in its determination. Writing that “[w]hile it is true that a juvenile delinquency hearing is not a criminal proceeding, the underlying conduct may still be criminal in nature.” The court went on to note that the distinction is supported by Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article §3-801(k), of the Annotated Code, which defines a “delinquent act” as “an act which would be a crime if committed by an adult.” The boy’s possession of marijuana was a criminal act, despite the fact that it could only have resulted in a finding of delinquency.

Moreover, the lease’s definition of “drug-related criminal activity” makes clear that an act need not lead to a criminal conviction to constitute a breach. This definition, among other activity, includes “the illegal manufacture, sale, distribution, dispensing, storage, use or possession of a controlled substance.” This definition extends the universe of acts constituting a breach of the lease to illegal acts. Even if it can be argued that the boy’s possession of marijuana was not criminal, the court ruled that there is no doubt that this activity, which could have resulted in a delinquency finding, was illegal. The terms of the lease were therefore applicable to the acts committed by a juvenile.

A host of court decisions across the country have addressed the fairness of evictions from public housing, and more commonly from multifamily residential housing that is subject to HUD regulations, when they result from the illegal acts of family members or guests not parties to the lease. The predominant view of those decisions is that Congress did not intend eviction of innocent tenants based on the criminal activity of third parties. Many of the courts required that all relevant circumstances be considered before evicting a tenant based on a minor child’s drug possession.

In this case, the court noted the competing interest involved in the rights of law abiding tenants to a crime-free housing situation, as opposed to the rights of tenants whose only culpability is providing shelter for those who would break the law.

The Maryland court held that all relevant circumstances should be presented in an evidentiary hearing before a tenant may be evicted based on the drug possession of that tenant’s minor son. This ruling best accommodates the competing interest of the tenant subject to eviction and the other residents of the housing community. “We believe that the relevant circumstances which should be considered, particularly in a case where the offenders are juveniles, and whether the tenant could have foreseen and prevented the criminal activity and, more specifically, what actions have been taken by the tenant, including assistance from governmental or private sources to end such criminal activity.”

In considering the circumstances, the appellate court appeared heavily influenced by this minor child’s prior charge of conspiracy to sell cocaine in the same public housing complex. The court reasoned that any other result in this case where “a member of a household repeatedly engaged in criminal activity” would be a bar to the landlord’s ability to curtail criminal activity.

While this case involves public housing, the rationale articulated by the appellate court is equally applicable to privately owned multi-family housing that is required by government regulation to contain a provision with respect to illegal drugs. This case provides good guidance to landlords in interpreting drug-related criminal activity lease provisions.