Recent Court Rulings

RSS

Facts: An owner and the Ohio Housing Finance Agency (OHFA) are parties to a HUD-approved housing assistance payments (HAP) contract under which Section 8 subsidies are applied to rents at the site. The owner sued OHFA for breach of contract, alleging that OHFA failed to pay a series of “automatic” annual rent increases due under the HAP contract. OHFA claimed that changes to federal law and applicable HUD regulations excused payment of the rent increases under the HAP contract.

Facts: A resident was killed by a stray bullet when a fellow resident fired a gun in the direction of the site's security office. As a result, survivors of the incident sued the PHA for negligently failing to evict the criminal resident at the first instance of violent behavior.

Facts: In his application for housing at a local PHA, an applicant admitted that he was recently released from prison after serving a 15-year sentence for robbery. In addition to the application, he also signed HUD's Authorization for the Release of Information/Privacy Act Notice and the PHA's Authorization for Release of Information.

Facts: A resident locked herself in her unit and turned on her gas stove. After police responded to the scene, the resident was removed from the unit and referred for a mental health evaluation. The PHA subsequently terminated the resident's lease and denied her federal Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher benefits. The former resident sued the PHA and its executive director and Section 8 coordinator, claiming that their actions violated her due process rights and her rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Fair Housing Act (FHA).

Facts: The New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) terminated a resident's Section 8 subsidy because he's a Level 2 sex offender who's subject to a lifetime registration requirement. Before terminating the subsidy, HPD had provided it to the resident for more than three years.

Facts: In April 2009, a resident received a notice that the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) was considering terminating her lease due to repeated late rent payments. After the resident failed to respond to the notice and a subsequent notice, the manager sent a notice advising the resident that her file was being forwarded to the Tenancy Administration Department for potential termination. The notice further advised her that she would receive notice of a hearing at which she could defend against any charges made.

Facts: A resident sued the local housing authority for terminating her Section 8 rent assistance. At the time she first applied for assistance, she had been receiving Minnesota Supplemental Assistance (MSA) payments. The resident didn't disclose her MSA income where required on her initial Section 8 assistance application. She also failed to disclose her MSA income on her annual Section 8 assistance recertification applications for the following 11 years.

Facts: The daughter of a New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) resident, and the daughter's common-law husband, claimed succession rights to the unit after the resident died. NYCHA ruled that they weren't entitled to stay as remaining family members. The daughter appealed, claiming that NYCHA's decision was unreasonable. The court ruled against the daughter, and she appealed.

Ruling: The appeals court ruled against the daughter.

Facts: A local housing authority told a low-income and disabled applicant who was trying to pre-qualify for a unit that he wasn't eligible for Section 8 housing because he had an unfavorable credit history and criminal background. The applicant filed a complaint in court for the violation of his due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The applicant's history with the housing authority dates back to June 2008, but his lawsuit wasn't filed until April 2011.

Facts: In 2004, a family applied to the local housing authority (PHA) for a Section 8 voucher. After completing the verification process, the family received a follow-up letter notifying them that they were scheduled to attend an orientation or briefing meeting. The letter notified them that their attendance was mandatory and that the attendance of any household members age 18 and older was also mandatory.