No. SCAP-23-0000540, Tuesday, December 10, 2024, 10 a.m.

BLOSSOM BELL, Petitioner/Appellant-Appellee, vs. HAWAI‘I PUBLIC HOUSING AUTHORITY, Respondent/Appellee-Appellant.

[ Listen to the audio recording in MP3 format ]

The above-captioned case has been set for oral argument on the merits at:

Mililani High School Gymnasium
95-1200 Meheula Parkway
Mililani, HI 96789

The oral argument will also be livestreamed for public viewing via the Judiciary’s YouTube channel at YouTube.com/hawaiicourts and ʻŌlelo Community Television olelo.org/tv-schedule/.

Attorneys for Petitioner/Appellant-Appellee BLOSSOM BELL:
     Nicholas J. Severson and Cynthia R. Moore of Legal Aid Society of Hawai‘i

Attorneys for Respondent/Appellee-Appellant HAWAI‘I PUBLIC HOUSING AUTHORITY:
     Craig Y. Iha and Klemen Urbanc, Deputy Attorneys General

NOTE: Order granting Application for Transfer, filed 05/17/24.

COURT: Recktenwald, C.J., McKenna, Eddins, Ginoza and Devens, JJ.

Brief Description:

This case involves the Hawai‘i Public Housing Authority’s (“HPHA”) eviction of tenant Blossom Bell (“Bell”) from public housing.  Bell had lived in her public housing unit for 40 years.  At some point, her young granddaughter moved in with her.  Bell’s son-in-law was visiting the unit when he attacked and severely injured Bell’s downstairs neighbor.  The attack was unforeseeable.  Bell’s son-in-law immediately left the HPHA property and has not returned since.

HPHA issued Bell a notice of termination based on her guest’s criminal act.  While Bell was provided a grievance hearing, she was not provided with an opportunity to “cure” the violation.  The hearing officer determined Bell violated her rental agreement and referred the matter to the eviction board.  The eviction board agreed.  Specifically, the eviction board determined that Bell’s violation was, under the relevant Hawai‘i Administrative Rules (“HAR”), “non-curable due to the serious nature of the offense.”

Bell appealed the order of eviction to the circuit court, arguing that the relevant HAR conflicted with the HPHA’s “Admission and Continued Occupancy Policy” (“ACOP”), which required HPHA to provide Bell with at least 24 hours to cure the alleged violation forming the basis of the eviction.  In this case, Bell argued she had cured the violation because her son-in-law left the property and had not returned since.  The circuit court agreed with Bell.  The circuit court reversed the order of eviction and remanded the case to the eviction board to hold a new hearing applying the curability provisions of the ACOP.

On remand, the eviction board applied the ACOP but determined that Bell’s son-in-law’s departure did not “cure” her violation of the rental agreement because there was no way for her to undo the assault of her downstairs neighbor.  The eviction board thus re-adopted its order of eviction.     

Bell once again appealed the order of eviction to the circuit court.  The circuit court reversed the eviction board’s decision and reinstated Bell’s rental agreement.  HPHA appealed to the ICA, and the case was transferred to the Hawai‘i Supreme Court.