VAWA Notices in Eviction Cases: Conflicting Court Interpretations and Best Practices for Owners & Managers

Recent court decisions reveal conflicting interpretations of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) related to eviction and termination notices. Although the statute itself is clear, not all courts have consistently applied it, which creates a risk for owners and managers of covered properties.

The California Decision: Clear Language, Clear Direction

In DHI Cherry Glen Associates, LP v. Gutierrez (2019), a California Court of Appeals held that VAWA requires notices of termination to be served whenever a tenancy is terminated, regardless of whether the termination is related to domestic violence. The court emphasized:

"The plain and commonsense meaning of the statutory language contained in VAWA requires VAWA notices to be served with any notice of termination."

The court further stated:

"There is no language in the statute that would support a meaning that the VAWA notices of termination are premised on domestic violence."

This reasoning aligns with both the text of the law and HUD’s long-standing interpretation that tenants are entitled to VAWA protections and information whenever their tenancy is at risk.

The North Carolina Case: An Outlier

In contrast, a recent North Carolina court decision (Oxford Housing Authority v. Church, 2025) reached the opposite conclusion, holding that VAWA notices are only required if the termination is due to domestic violence. This interpretation narrows the scope of VAWA protections and overlooks the statute’s clear language. As a result, the NC court adopted an interpretation that conflicts with federal requirements and could undermine the protections Congress aimed to provide.

Why This Matters

The split between these decisions creates uncertainty, but the stakes are too high for owners and managers to gamble on narrow readings of VAWA. Noncompliance with VAWA notice requirements can lead to:

• Court challenges and delays in eviction proceedings
• HUD or other federal agency findings of noncompliance
• Potential fair housing claims and reputational risk

Best Practice Recommendation

Considering the clear statutory language, the well-reasoned interpretation by the California decision, and HUD’s guidance, owners and managers of VAWA-covered housing must always provide the required VAWA notice along with any notice of termination of tenancy.

This approach:

• Ensures compliance with federal law
• Protects owners from adverse rulings in jurisdictions that follow the plain-language interpretation
• Provides residents with full access to the protections Congress intended under VAWA

Conclusion

While the North Carolina case may provide temporary protection for landlords who want to avoid serving VAWA notices, it is an exception and does not align with the statute or strong case law. The best, safest, and most practical approach is simple: include the VAWA notice with every notice of tenancy termination.