Landlord and Tenant -- Prohibition of Retaliatory Eviction in Landlord-Tenant Relations: A Study of Practice and Proposals

On August 12, 1974, Mr. and Mrs. Leon Fulcher, mobile home owners, reported to the public health authorities that their sewage system was defective, causing backup and resulting in an unsanitary condition.The health department investigated and issued an order requiring the park owner to remedy the problem. 1 One day later the Fulchers were evicted by the park owner.It was undisputed that the motivating factor behind the eviction was the complaint filed with the health department. 2 The Consumer Protection Division of the North Carolina Attorney General's Office brought suit in superior court seeking first a temporary restraining order 3 and later a preliminary injunction.4 Both motions were granted on the theory that the landlord's action constituted a retaliatory eviction which runs counter to public policy and, as such, violated the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices statute.5 The logical basis for this theory is simple.A man should not be punished for acting in the public interest and within his rights by reporting health code violations.Such logic has been adopted in an expanding minority 6 of states, either by common law 7 or 1. Carteret County, N.C., Health Dep't Notice, Aug. 12, 1974.2. Supplemental Memorandum of Law at 1-2, State v. Cleve, 74 CVS 852 (Carteret County Super.Ct. 1974).3. Judge Copeland (now an Associate Justice on the North Carolina Supreme Court) granted this motion.State v. Cleve, 74 CVS 852 (Carteret County Super.Ct. 1974).4.This motion was also granted.Id. 5. N.C.GEN.STAT.§ 75-1.1 (1975).6.For the orthodox majority view see Gabriel v. Borowy, 324 Mass.231, 234, 85 N.E.2d 435, 438 (1949) where the court states that "[a] landlord could at common law terminate a tenancy at will for any purpose he might desire and the tenant could not question his motives or attack his reasons."7. Edwards v.