Legal
What's New Research Government Site Index Home Meetings Directories About ICSC Search ICSC Sign On Publications Education Help Messages



ICSC Legal Database - CasesMonday, February 22, 1999 05:01 PM

Case Index:
00117

Citation:
Allegheny Housing Auth. v. Morrissey, 651 A.2d 632 (Pa. Commw. 1994).

Issue:
(1) Whether the terms of lease agreements prohibiting pets are valid? (2) Whether the housing authority is

estopped from evicting tenants for breach of no-pet provisions because of past conceptions to the policy?

Facts:
Plaintiff, the Allegheny County Housing Authority, operates a low income public housing project. Since 1968,

there was a provision in its month-to-month lease prohibiting the ownership and maintenance of pets on the

premises, and stating that tenants could be terminated for failure to abide by the policy. In 1984, abuse of the

policy was met by regulations stating that owners could keep their pets until they die, but new pets would lead

to eviction. This led to a 1990 lease prohibiting all pets except for the elderly and handicapped. Defendants'

lease was terminated after they obtained a new dog in 1991. An arbitration board ruled in favor of the tenants.

The trial court affirmed and denied Plaintiff's post-trial motions for judgment n.o.v. Plaintiff appealed.

Holding:
Reversed (1) A public housing agency must maintain the project in a decent, sale and sanitary condition with

policies that do not violate federal policy. Plaintiff, therefore, did not have to prove the existence of federal

regulations prohibiting pets in a residential project. Plaintiff's lease provision also meets substantive due process

 requirements because it is rationally related to legitimate housing purposes. Plaintiff had to maintain safe

conditions and pets where inhibiting this obligation. Under contract law, the lease agreement is a valid contract

when both parties agree to its teens and conditions, unless there are federal or state regulations prohibiting

specify terms. Defendants, therefore, breached a valid lease condition by keeping a dog in the residence. (2)

Equitable estoppel requires negligent misrepresentation of material facts reliance by the innocent party, and

inducement to act to its detriment. Plaintiff will not be estopped from evicting tenants because Defendants had

knowledge of the actual facts. The 1984 regulations were narrowly limited to tenants owning pets, and signed

1991 lease was not

unreasonable.

Publication:
Legal Update

Date:
Winter 1994

Classification 1:
Landlord and Tenant

Classification 2:

Classification 3:

00117 - Legal Update - Winter 1994