Recent Court Rulings

RSS

Facts: A nonprofit corporation owns a site for the elderly that was financed by HUD. With the financing, the corporation entered into a Project Rental Assistance Contract with HUD in which the corporation agreed to provide housing for low-income elderly persons at the property, and HUD agreed to provide monthly subsidies to “[to] cover the difference between [owner’s] Operating Expenses and tenant payments as determined in accordance with the HUD-established schedules and criteria.”

Facts: A public housing resident sued the local PHA for initiating eviction proceedings against him without first providing him with a grievance hearing or due process. Under his lease, based on the resident’s reported income (which was zero), his initial monthly rent was calculated as negative $44. In other words, he was permitted to occupy the premises for free, and he received a monthly stipend toward utility services of $44.

Facts: A resident association of a Section 8 site asked a court to set aside HUD’s decision to abate the site’s Housing Assistance Payments (HAP) contract. When HUD abates and terminates a project-based Section 8 contract, residents living at the property are given the opportunity to apply for a tenant protection voucher.

Facts: A Section 8 resident’s son and his dog lived with the resident. The dog never attacked another person or pet, but it did display aggressive behavior towards other dogs and people—including lunging, flaring up, rearing on its hind feet, and baring its teeth. In addition, the dog often went “crazy” when other residents or dogs passed by the resident’s apartment. The resident told a neighbor that the dog was trained as a guard dog, and she asked another neighbor to adjust her dog’s walk schedule to avoid her dog.

Facts: A Section 8 voucher resident lived in an apartment with her five children. In February 2014, she was notified that her benefits under the program were being terminated due to alleged violations of the program rules. After an administrative hearing, the determination to terminate her benefits was confirmed based upon the finding that she was obligated, but failed, to request permission to add an occupant to her subsidized apartment.

Facts: A Section 8 resident was issued a voucher by the local PHA. After an annual inspection, the PHA determined that resident’s unit didn’t meet the Housing Quality Standards required under federal regulations, and it gave notice to the resident that the vouchers to her landlord would be terminated. The resident then sought approval from the PHA to move to a new residence.

Facts: A Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program participant sued the local PHA for allegedly violating her procedural due process rights by effectively terminating her HCV assistance without making an official determination that she was subject to termination from the HCV program.

Facts: A married Muslim couple who dress in traditional attire sought to rent an apartment at a low-income site. After being denied, the couple sued the owner for religious discrimination under the Fair Housing Act.

The rental application asked for a variety information from applicants, but for purposes of this case, the most relevant is the requirement that an applicant provide rental history from the previous five years. The form asked for the names and addresses of past landlords and the locations of the prior residences.

Facts: A severely disabled resident lives in Section 8 housing for low-income elderly and disabled tenants. He suffers from incomplete paralysis in his extremities, with muscle spasms and sensations leaving him in daily pain. At the time of lease renewal, he signed a drug-free housing policy addendum.

Facts: A nonprofit organization that seeks to maintain racially and economically inclusive communities sued a property management company alleging violations of the Fair Housing Act. The lawsuit claimed that the company has a general policy that it won’t negotiate with, rent to, or make certain units available to voucher households. The nonprofit claimed that the company applies this policy in white, non-Hispanic areas and applies it even when the combined income of the family and the voucher subsidy meet or exceed the contract rent for the unit.