Federal National Mortgage Ass'n v. Nunez, 460 Mass. 511 (2011)

Citation: Federal National Mortgage Ass'n v. Nunez, 460 Mass. 511 (2011)
Parent Document: Federal National Mortgage Ass'n v. Nunez, 460 Mass. 511 (2011)
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts (state)
Effective Date: 2011-09-06
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6580334/federal-national-mortgage-assn-v-nunez/ ↗

Full Text

788 chars

This conclusion is consistent with Thorpe v. Housing Auth. of Durham, 393 U.S. 268, 271-272, 281-283 (1969), where the Supreme Court held that a Department of Housing and Urban Development circular requiring that a tenant who is told to vacate a housing unit be given notice of the reasons and an opportunity to reply was applicable to a tenant who, at the time the directive was issued, had received notice of termination of her tenancy but had not vacated the premises. The Court subsequently noted that, “because the tenant had ‘not yet vacated,’ we saw no significance in the fact that the housing authority *521had ‘decided to evict her before the circular was issued.’ ” Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244, 276 (1994), quoting Thorpe v. Housing Auth. of Durham, supra at 283.

Other Sections in This Document (43)

Full Text