Greene v. Lindsey
Headline: Court limits use of posted eviction notices in public housing, ruling posting-only notice unconstitutional and urging more reliable methods like mail to protect tenants before eviction.
Holding: The Court held that relying only on posting eviction summonses on apartment doors in public housing does not satisfy the Fourteenth Amendment’s requirement of adequate notice and that more reliable methods, such as mail, are required.
- Stops states from using posting alone in many public-housing evictions.
- Likely requires mailing or other reliable supplements to posted notices.
- Helps tenants receive actual notice before eviction proceedings conclude.
Summary
Background
A group of tenants living in a Louisville public housing project were subject to eviction actions brought by the local housing authority. The Sheriff’s office served notice by posting a copy of the eviction writ on each apartment door under a Kentucky law that lets officers post notice when they cannot find the tenant. The tenants say they never saw the posted notices and only learned of the proceedings when writs of possession were executed after default judgments, so they sued claiming their Fourteenth Amendment right to adequate notice had been violated.
Reasoning
The Court examined whether posting a summons on an apartment door was "notice reasonably calculated" to let occupants know an eviction case was pending. Relying on earlier decisions about adequate notice, the Court looked at the real-world facts: process servers testified that posted notices were often removed by children or other tenants, and the statute required no second attempt or any mailing when the first personal attempt failed. The Court concluded that posting alone in these circumstances was not reasonably likely to inform tenants and therefore did not meet the Constitution’s minimum notice requirement. The Court affirmed the lower court that had found the Kentucky procedure constitutionally deficient and indicated that combining posting with mail service would be constitutionally preferable.
Real world impact
This ruling prevents states from relying solely on door posting to start evictions in similar public-housing situations. Housing authorities and sheriffs may need to add reliable supplements, such as mailing the notice, to ensure tenants actually receive notice before eviction. The decision leaves it to states to choose procedures so long as they meet constitutional notice requirements.
Dissents or concurrances
A dissent argued the record was too thin to overturn the statute, noting conflicting testimony about torn notices, concerns about mail reliability, and that many States use posting in summary eviction rules.
Opinions in this case:
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?