DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Section 8

Citation
Section 8
Parent Document
Theodore Hayes v. Philip Harvey, 874 F.3d 98 (2017)
Effective Date
2017-10-18
Original Source
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4435296/theodore-hayes-v-philip-harvey/ ↗

Other Sections in This Document (260)

Full Text

1,350 chars 
8
       Our jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our
review of the District Court’s order granting summary
judgment is de novo. Massie v. U.S. Dept. of Hous. & Urban
Dev., 620 F.3d 340, 347 (3d Cir. 2010). We will affirm if,
viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the
nonmoving party, “there is no genuine dispute as to any
material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter
of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
                       III.   Discussion
        The Hayes family argues that, as enhanced-voucher
tenants, they have a right to remain in unit 538B because they
have not moved since the unit was converted from project-
based to tenant-based assistance, they have not provided the
voucher to another family, the property continues to be offered
as rental housing, and Harvey does not have cause to terminate
their tenancy. Unless and until any of the above circumstances
change, they assert Harvey must continually renew their lease.
Harvey, on the other hand, argues that because he purchased
the property “free and clear,” he is not subject to section 8’s
terms and conditions and is under no obligation to renew their
lease. We conclude that the manner in which Harvey purchased
the property is not dispositive. Harvey’s rights and duties under
the section 8 program are set forth in the HAP contract and