Reference no: EM132114441

Maple City Enterprises Inc. built and operates Maple Grove, a large apartment project for low-income residents. The project was funded under a state law providing no-interest loans to private contractors who agree to follow state laws and rules in operating low-income housing projects. The state statute authorizing this project states the problem of low income housing is critical and poor people are entitled to decent housing. It sets forth the conditions that must be met to be eligible to reside in the project and the maximum rents that can be charged. The statute states that projects must provide notice and an opportunity to present information before an eviction can occur but does not provide any specific process to be followed. Ms. Taylor Sniff filed an application for low-income housing and satisfied the conditions of eligibility for residence in Maple Grove. Taylor's sole source of income is Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits. When she and her four children moved into Maple Grove on January 1, she paid a $750 security deposit and signed a one-year lease that stated the lease could only be renewed by agreement between Maple Grove and the tenant. The lease also stated that tenants could be evicted for cause before the end of the lease if they failed to follow the rules of Maple Grove. The rules prohibit tenants from damaging apartments, disturbing other tenants, or allowing persons not listed on the lease to reside in the apartment. The lease also required that tenants vacate their apartments within 15 days of receiving an eviction notice. Under the lease, the tenant can file a written objection to the eviction notice within 5 days 2 after receiving the eviction notice, and the project manager must then decide whether to uphold the eviction based on that written objection and any documentation found in the tenant's rental file. The rules require Maple Grove to provide a full oral evidentiary hearing before the project's board of directors within one week after the tenants move out if the tenants request a hearing and deny the facts upon which the eviction is based. Jake Villainhall, the project manager served Sniff with a notice of eviction on February 1, which alleged that she and her children had violated Maple Grove's rules by disturbing other tenants and allowing her boyfriend, Tom Piddleston, to reside in the apartment but furnished no specific details. Sniff denied all the allegations and requested an opportunity to review her rental file, but Villianhall said the file was confidential until the time of the evidentiary hearing. The notice ordered her to move out by February 16 and informed her that an evidentiary hearing would be held on February 23 if she requested one. Villainhall also called the Department of Social Services and informed Sniff ’s TANF caseworker that Piddleston was cohabitating in the apartment with Sniff, which could affect her eligibility for TANF and SNAP benefits.

Assuming that due process applies to the eviction, do the eviction procedures violate due process and explain why by stating and applying the test used by the Supreme Court to decide the issue of what process is due and by explaining what process is due in this case. What arguments do Taylor and Maple Grove have to support their positions on the issues of whether due process applies and what process is due?