Recent Court Rulings

RSS

Facts: A Section 8 resident signed a one-year lease with the owner that began on July 1, 2009, and required the resident to pay a $700 security deposit. The rent was $538 per month; the amount to be paid by federal public housing assistance was $446 per month, and the resident’s monthly payment was $92. If the rent wasn’t paid in full on the first day of the month, the lease authorized the owner to charge a $35 late payment fee.

Facts: A prospective resident with disabilities who relies on Social Security and has no convictions for any violent or drug-related criminal activity applied for a unit. She met the financial eligibility requirements, but was denied admission. The rejection letters stated, “Criminal History unsatisfactory.” Her criminal history report stated “fail to ID fugitive intent to give false info” with a filing date of May 2008. The applicant appealed the denial of admission, but her appeal was denied in February 2012.

Facts: A resident sued the owner and the local housing authority for alleged wrongful termination of her Section 8 subsidy. In August 2008, the resident was notified that her unit failed a Housing Quality Standards (HQS) inspection. When she received this notification, she understood it to mean that if the housing authority stopped paying the Section 8 subsidy, it was due to the repair conditions in her unit. The resident claimed that, after the owner failed the 2008 HQS inspection, it failed to complete repairs.

Facts: Owners of a project-based Section 8 site sued HUD to challenge regulations that provide standards for “decent, safe, and sanitary” low-income housing. Under Section 8 of the Housing Act of 1937, HUD provides housing assistance through both “project-based assistance,” where HUD enters into contracts with property owners to subsidize designated dwellings, and “tenant-based assistance,” where HUD gives vouchers for tenant-selected dwellings.

Facts: In December 2007, a resident slipped and fell in front of the owner’s building while stepping up to the curb and onto a five- or six-inch mound of snow. The resident claimed that the owner was negligent in removing snow from the sidewalk.

The owner argued that according to all meteorological data, there couldn’t have been such an accumulation of snow and/or ice on that date, and, other than the resident’s testimony, there’s no independent admissible evidence to contradict the meteorological findings.

Facts: Under a housing assistance payments (HAP) contract with a site owner, a local PHA is barred from making a monthly Section 8 payment to the owner for a unit that doesn’t meet the minimum housing quality standards (HQS) established by federal law. During the inspection of one of the owner’s units on Oct.

Facts: A former resident sued the local PHA for evicting him and eliminating his contract for housing assistance without giving him proper notice. The resident argued that the PHA violated his due process rights because he didn’t receive adequate notice of the eviction proceedings. The notices all came back to the PHA as undeliverable. The PHA asked the court for a judgment in its favor without a trial.

Ruling: A South Carolina district court granted the PHA’s request and dismissed the resident’s claims.

Facts: An 84-year-old resident living in a one-bedroom unit submitted a request to the local PHA for a larger unit, along with a doctor’s verification indicating that the small size of her unit had created stress that contributed to her poor health. The PHA denied her request.

Facts: A PHA sent an owner a letter notifying her that various conditions needed to be repaired, and verified as repaired, within 30 days, or her Section 8 subsidy would terminate. The letter also notified the owner that she might be entitled to reimbursement for some or all of the suspended subsidy if she could establish that the majority of the violations were caused by the resident, or that access for repairs was delayed by the resident. To seek such reimbursement, the letter gave the owner a number to call within 30 days to discuss the policy requirements.

Facts: In 1974, a group of residents sued the Toledo Metropolitan Housing Authority and HUD for segregating minorities from non-minorities when building and doling out housing. At the time, the court ruled for the residents and ordered adherence to an Affirmative Action Plan (AAP) designed to correct these practices and undo their effects. Recently, the lead resident in that case asked the court to modify the AAP to address the changed realities that the PHA and HUD face today.