• Landlord cannot evict for “no cause” during the fixed term of the lease.1
• Good cause is required for non-renewal of public housing, low-income tax credit housing, project-based voucher and Section 8 project-based rental assistance housing, rural development housing, and some other subsidized housing leases.2
• Lease is recorded or assumed by new owner. A new owner who purchases the leased property is typically not subject to the lease between the tenant and the old owner. However, if the tenant recorded the lease agreement in the conveyance records before the sale, the new owner is bound by the lease.3  A new owner who accepts rent and follows the other lease terms has arguably assumed the lease, such that it remains in effect under its original terms.
• Eviction was an abuse of right/retaliatory.4
• Tenant cannot be evicted for “force majeure” where the unit is only partially destroyed.5
• If a lease with indeterminate term obligates tenant to make repairs but the landlord delivered the leased premises in deplorable condition, the lease should not be terminated until the lessee has been adequately compensated for repair work the lessee performed.6

• 1La. C.C. arts. 1983, 2728; Shell Oil, Co. v. Siddiqui Grp. Enters., Inc., 98-CA-496 (La. App. 5 Cir. 12/16/98), 722 So. 2d 1197.
• 2For discussion of the unique requirements of these leases, see this manual’s chapter on federally subsidized housing.
• 3See La. C.C. arts. 2711–2712.
• 4See section 5.4.2 for further discussion of abuse of right doctrine in eviction defense.
• 5La. C.C. art. 2714­–2715; Chivleatto v. Family Furniture & Appliance Ctr., 196 So. 2d 298, 301 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1967) (“[W]here a building is only partially destroyed, . . . it is the lessee and not the lessor that is given the exclusive right to demand revocation of the lease.”); Treigle Sash Factory, Inc. v. Saladino, 31 So. 2d 172, 175 (1947) (holding that where building was only partially destroyed in fire, and could be restored, the lessor was not entitled to possession).
• 6Wolf v. Walker, 342 So. 2d 1122 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1976).

An abuse of right is an act that objectively appears to be an exercise of an individual right, but that is not protected by the courts because it is exercised with a predominant intent to harm, is performed without a serious and legitimate interest, or is contrary to good faith or moral rules.1  Abuse of right has been expressly recognized as an eviction defense when a landlord refuses to renew a fixed-term lease in retaliation for a tenant’s attempt to secure his rights under the lease or applicable law.2  However, as of this writing, there is no published case finding that a tenant met their burden of proof on an abuse of right defense to eviction.

The key to winning a retaliatory eviction defense is proving the landlord’s retaliatory motive. Because the tenant must prove that the notice to vacate was issued in retaliation for a good faith attempt to secure the tenant’s rights, proof of retaliatory intent is often difficult.3  A set of facts that might satisfy the requirements of abuse of right is one in which the landlord threatens in writing (or in a recorded oral statement) to terminate a month-to-month lease due to tenant’s action to enforce their rights, for example by calling code enforcement.

Public and private landlords are barred from retaliating against tenants who attempt to enforce their rights under the federal Fair Housing Act.4  If a government agency is the landlord, tenants may not be retaliated against for exercise of First Amendment or other constitutional rights.5

Effective July 1, 2023, City of New Orleans Ordinance 26-680 creates a rebuttable presumption of retaliation where a landlord chooses not to renew a lease within 6 months of an attempt by the tenant to enforce their right to safe, habitable housing. For the rebuttable presumption to apply, there must be evidence of a violation of health and safety standards.

• 1See Ill. Cent. Gulf R.R. Co. v. Int’l Harvester, 368 So. 2d 1009, 1014 (La. 1979).
• 2Owens & Sons v. Casey, 94-2580 (La. App. 4 Cir. 07/26/95), 659 So. 2d 541 (reviewing establishment and application of abuse of right doctrine, but finding no abuse of right); Capone v. Kenny, 94-0888 (La. App. 4 Cir. 11/30/94), 646 So. 2d 510 (finding that the trial court erred in declining to consider tenant’s defense of abuse of right, but also declining to find an abuse of right).
• 3Real Estate Servs., Inc. v. Barnes, 451 So. 2d 1229 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1981).
• 442 U.S.C. § 3617.
• 5McQueen v. Druker, 317 F. Supp. 1122, 1131 (D. Mass. 1970), aff’d, 438 F.2d 781 (1st Cir. 1971).

Following a hurricane or other natural disaster, it is common to see landlords conduct mass evictions for inspection and repair. The terms of the lease will typically control in this situation. However, in the absence of specific lease terms, the Civil Code applies. If a unit is totally destroyed, the lease automatically terminates.1  The landlord still must go through the legal eviction process. However, if a unit is only partially destroyed, or the tenant’s use “substantially impaired,” the tenant may choose to terminate the lease, but the landlord may not.2  To determine the level of damage, the Court may consider (1) length of time the repairs would take, (2) the extent of the tenant’s loss of use, (3) the length of time the tenant would be displaced, (4) damage done to the tenant’s property, (5) the amount paid by the insurer of the building to the insured (as compared with the value of the building), (6) the cost of repairs, and (7) to what degree and which parts of the building are damaged.3  In the case of mass evictions post-disaster, advocates should insist that the landlord must do a unit-by-unit assessment of damage. It is not permissible to simply evict everyone from a multifamily property because some units sustained some damage.

• 1La. C.C. art. 2714.
• 2La. C.C. art. 2715; Chivleatto v. Family Furniture & Appliance Ctr., 196 So. 2d 298, 301 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1967); Treigle Sash Factory, Inc. v. Saladino, 31 So. 2d 172, 175 (La. 1947).
• 3See Bossier Ctr., Inc. v. Palais Royal, Inc., 385 So.2d 886 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1980); Eubanks v. McDowell, 460 So.2d 42 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1984).