The Kentucky Court of Appeals recently ruled in a case that could impact the rights of domestic violence victims in housing situations. The court's decision came in the case of the Lexington-Fayette County Human Rights Commission on behalf of Hannah Hurt against Anderson Campus Rental Properties, LLC, and others. The ruling, issued on August 14, 2026, clarifies the interpretation of Kentucky housing laws related to tenants who obtain protective orders.

This case is significant for victims of domestic violence who may seek to terminate their leases early due to safety concerns. The court's decision affects how landlords and tenants interpret the law regarding lease termination rights when a protective order is involved.

Background

The parties involved in this case are Hannah Hurt, a tenant who sought help from the Lexington-Fayette County Human Rights Commission, and Anderson Campus Rental Properties, LLC, the landlord. Hurt entered into a lease agreement for an apartment in Lexington, Kentucky, in August 2019. The lease stated that there were no termination privileges.

On May 3, 2020, police responded to an incident involving Hurt and her partner, Ramon Mercado. Following this incident, Hurt obtained an emergency protective order (EPO) against Mercado. After vacating the apartment and providing the landlord with a copy of the EPO, Hurt was informed by the property manager that she could not terminate her lease early and remained responsible for rent payments until the lease expired in July 2020.

Hurt later filed a complaint with the Lexington-Fayette County Human Rights Commission, which led to a probable cause determination in May 2022. The Commission then pursued legal action in Fayette Circuit Court, arguing that Anderson violated Kentucky laws by refusing to allow Hurt to terminate her lease and retaliating against her.

The Ruling

The Kentucky Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Anderson Campus Rental Properties, LLC, affirming the Fayette Circuit Court's decision to grant summary judgment. The court determined that Hurt was not entitled to terminate her lease under Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) 383.300 because she only obtained an EPO, which does not provide the same lease termination rights as a domestic violence order (DVO) or an interpersonal protective order (IPO).

The court stated, "we conclude that the circuit court correctly interpreted KRS 383.300 and properly entered summary judgment."

The court explained that while recipients of EPOs are considered “protected tenants” for certain protections, the right to terminate a lease is specifically reserved for those with DVOs or IPOs. The court emphasized that the law must be followed as it is written, and any changes or extensions to the law would need to come from the legislature, not the court.

Additionally, the court addressed the retaliation claims made by the Commission, concluding that Anderson's actions did not constitute retaliation under KRS 383.300 or KRS 344.280. The court noted that Anderson's insistence on enforcing the lease was based on its contractual rights and did not change after Hurt's attempts to terminate the lease.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for domestic violence victims and their housing rights in Kentucky. It clarifies that while victims can seek protections and accommodations, the specific legal rights to terminate leases are limited to those who have obtained DVOs or IPOs. This distinction may leave some victims without the ability to exit unsafe living situations without facing financial penalties.

The decision also reinforces the importance of understanding the legal definitions and protections available to tenants under Kentucky law. Victims of domestic violence may need to seek additional legal advice to navigate their rights effectively and ensure their safety.

What's Next

It is unclear if the decision will be appealed to a higher court. There may also be discussions in the Kentucky legislature regarding potential changes to the law to provide broader protections for victims of domestic violence. The case highlights ongoing issues surrounding housing rights and protections for vulnerable populations.