Erica Bishop lived in public housing with her children. Her lease stated that only she and her children, who were listed on the lease, could live in the apartment, and that she was responsible for the actions of all household members. Any violations of the lease by any household member, including criminal activity, would be grounds for eviction. Bishop’s son Derek committed an armed robbery at a store next to the apartment building. Bishop was given thirty days to vacate the apartment due to breach of the lease. She sued, arguing that Derek had moved out of the apartment months before the robbery, but she admitted he had been in the apartment right before the robbery. The trial court held that since Derek had visited the apartment right before the robbery, he was a household member and Bishop had to vacate. She appealed, contending that the lease was invalid because it was substantively unconscionable. Does Erica have grounds for a reversal in her favor? Discuss. [Bishop v. Housing Authority of South Bend, 920 N.E.2d 772 (Ind. App. 2010)]