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

1,185 chars 
10
        This appeal presents an issue of statutory interpretation,
so we start with an examination of the statute’s plain language.
See Rosenberg v. XM Ventures, 274 F.3d 137, 141 (3d Cir.
2001). If the statutory language is unambiguous, and the
“literal application of the statute” will not “produce a result
[either] demonstrably at odds with the intentions of its drafters”
or “so bizarre that Congress could not have intended it,” we
need not consider the statutory purpose or legislative history.
Doe v. Hesketh, 828 F.3d 159, 167 (3d Cir. 2016) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
                 A.     The Opt-out Provision
       We begin with section 8 of the Housing Act, 42 U.S.C
§ 1437f, because the Hayes family initially received project-
based assistance to rent unit 538B from Pine Street Associates.
Since Pine Street Associates opted out of a project-based
program, we look to the Housing Act’s opt-out provision,
§ 1437f(c)(8). 2 In addition to imposing specific obligations on
HUD and the property owner, the opt-out provision clearly
contemplates the property owner having a right to terminate an
assisted tenancy at some point following a valid opt-out from