INTERNAL PROTOTYPE — NOT LEGAL ADVICE — DO NOT SEND

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

1,843 chars 
11
a project-based program.
       First, subparagraph (A) makes clear that an opting out
property owner must provide notice of his or her intention not
to renew the HAP contract to HUD and to the affected tenants,
and that following termination of the HAP contract, HUD will
provide tenant-based assistance to the affected tenants. See
§ 1437f(c)(8)(A). Although the forthcoming tenant-based
assistance provides affected tenants with the financial means
to “choose the place they wish to rent, which is likely to include
the dwelling unit in which they currently reside,” nothing in
§ 1437f(c)(8)(A) obligates the property owner to renew
expired leases. Second, subparagraph (B) provides, “the owner
may not evict the tenants or increase the tenants’ rent payment
until such time as the owner has provided the notice [of opt-
out] and 1 year has elapsed.” § 1437f(c)(8)(B). But it is silent
on a property owner’s termination rights following that notice
period.
       The parties do not dispute both that Pine Street
Associates satisfied its obligations under the opt-out provision
and that the Hayes family’s assistance converted to tenant-
based assistance. Because termination of a HAP contract for
project-based assistance is a qualifying “eligibility event” for
enhanced voucher assistance, see § 1437f(t)(2), we look next
to § 1437f(t), the enhanced voucher provision.
           B.     The Enhanced Voucher Provision
       The enhanced voucher provision first states that unless
explicitly provided for in 42 U.S.C § 1437f(t)(1)(A)-(D),
“[e]nhanced voucher assistance . . . shall be voucher assistance
under subsection (o).” § 1437f(t)(1). The threshold question is
therefore whether § 1437f(t)(1) limits property owners’
nonrenewal rights. If it does not, we look to nonrenewal under
the ordinary voucher’s termination provision, §