Section 2

Citation: Section 2
Parent Document: Highgate Housing Limited Partnership v. Macaulay-Fisher (2015)
Jurisdiction: Vermont (state)
Effective Date: 2015-08-11
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4489499/highgate-housing-limited-partne... ↗

Other Sections in This Document (94)

Highgate Housing Limited Partnership v. Macaulay-Fisher (2015)
Highgate Housing Limited Partnership v. Macaulay-Fisher (2015)
Highgate Housing Limited Partnership v. Macaulay-Fisher (2015)
Highgate Housing Limited Partnership v. Macaulay-Fisher (2015)
Highgate Housing Limited Partnership v. Macaulay-Fisher (2015)
Highgate Housing Limited Partnership v. Macaulay-Fisher (2015)
Highgate Housing Limited Partnership v. Macaulay-Fisher (2015)
Highgate Housing Limited Partnership v. Macaulay-Fisher (2015)
Highgate Housing Limited Partnership v. Macaulay-Fisher (2015)
Highgate Housing Limited Partnership v. Macaulay-Fisher (2015)
Highgate Housing Limited Partnership v. Macaulay-Fisher (2015)
Highgate Housing Limited Partnership v. Macaulay-Fisher (2015)
Highgate Housing Limited Partnership v. Macaulay-Fisher (2015)
Highgate Housing Limited Partnership v. Macaulay-Fisher (2015)
Highgate Housing Limited Partnership v. Macaulay-Fisher (2015)
Highgate Housing Limited Partnership v. Macaulay-Fisher (2015)
Highgate Housing Limited Partnership v. Macaulay-Fisher (2015)
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2

Full Text

640 chars

Plaintiff claims that the printout is not sufficient because it does not show verification of
the specific number of hours Joshua worked to provide personal services to specific persons.
There is nothing in either HUD regulations or the Maloney Intake Form Joshua signed that
requires the number of hours worked. There is reasonable justification for needing to know
number of hours worked if calculations need to be done to make an annualized income figure,
which HUD apparently requires, but ARIS had provided the specific information about actual
biweekly income for approximately 6 months, which was sufficient to make this calculation.