Recent Court Rulings

RSS

Facts: A group of public housing residents sued their local PHA, claiming that it violated HUD regulations and the state’s contract law by charging them monthly rent above the lawful ceiling and by failing to conduct annual reviews and interim adjustments of residents’ utility allowances. Each resident, in addition to paying rent, has been required to pay a third-party utility provider for various utilities.

Facts: A resident qualified for a voucher in 2011 and used it to obtain a lease at an apartment site. The resident’s lease and Housing Assistance Payment contract made the PHA responsible for paying the entire monthly rental cost to the owner directly and assigned the resident responsibility for paying electricity, natural gas, water, and sewer bills. To cover those utility costs, the resident received monthly checks from the PHA.

Facts: On March 12, 2013, a site owner entered into a contract to purchase a 10-unit residential apartment building. Since 2008, the previous owner had received subsidy payments from HUD to assist low-income families living in the apartments. These payments were pursuant to a Housing Assistance Payment (HAP) contract. The new owner claimed that it relied on the existence of the HAP contract in deciding to purchase the site, and anticipated that the HAP contract would be assigned from the prior owner to him.

Facts: In 2014, the owner of a federally subsidized apartment building in Baltimore hired an extermination company to treat the site for a bedbug infestation. Two exterminators entered a disabled resident’s apartment and saw what looked to them like a marijuana plant growing in his bathtub. They reported this to the building’s management office. Someone in the office contacted the police, and an officer responded.

Facts: A resident had lived at an assisted site for approximately 17 years when, in late 2014, the PHA sent him a “notice to move” from the building. The resident asked to rent another specific apartment in the building, but that request was denied. The resident sued the PHA, claiming that the “notice to move” and the denial of his request to rent the other apartment was “clear discrimination” in violation of the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Facts: A resident had applied and was approved for subsidized housing that entitled him to a unit at a rate below the market value. He was placed on a waiting list, and almost five years later, he was notified of the availability of a unit. By then, he had already secured alternative housing for himself. Rather than reject the unit, he pretended to take possession of the unit for himself but actually gave possession of the unit to his niece, who, as an undocumented person, didn’t qualify for subsidized public housing.

Facts: In April 2011, a resident signed a lease for a subsidized unit under the Loan Management Set-Aside (LMSA) program. Under the LMSA program, the resident’s initial lease term, and any renewal term, must be for at least one year.

On July 10, 2014, the owner notified the resident that her lease was being terminated. The owner alleged that a guest of the resident engaged in criminal activity. The owner filed an eviction lawsuit and later voluntarily dismissed the case against the resident prior to the trial date.

Facts: An owner served a Section 8 resident with a 30-day termination notice for various illegal activity, which constitutes a breach of the lease. According to the termination notice, on July 10, 2012, the resident’s son was arrested on charges of gang assault in the first degree, and assault in the third degree, for the assault of another tenant at the site. Additionally, in 2005, the son had been arrested for the stabbing of another resident, resulting in charges of assault in the first degree.

Facts: An applicant claimed the local PHA unlawfully denied his application for housing and failed to conduct a hearing on his appeal of its administrative decision. He asked the court for an order directing that the PHA provide him with housing.

Facts: Since March 2005, a resident, his wife, and two children have lived in a Section 8 subsidized three-bedroom apartment. In December 2014, the local PHA notified the resident that his four-member family no longer qualified for its three-bedroom apartment, and that his failure to relocate to a two-bedroom apartment if and when one became available would result in forfeiture of his subsidy.