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

1,624 chars 
12
1437f(o)(7)(C). We note at the outset that nothing in the
enhanced voucher provision explicitly speaks to termination
generally, much less to termination in the context of
nonrenewal.
        It is undisputed that subparagraphs (A) and (D) do not
limit property owners’ nonrenewal rights. They provide that an
assisted family “shall pay as rent no less than the amount the
family was paying on the date of the eligibility event,” §
1437f(t)(1)(A), unless the family’s income “declines to a
significant extent,” § 1437f(t)(1)(D).
        The parties dispute whether subparagraph (B) creates a
right to remain, and if it does, whether and to what extent that
right is enforceable against property owners. They also dispute
whether subparagraph (C) exhausts the ways that an assisted
family loses its eligibility to receive enhanced voucher
assistance.
        Subparagraph (B) speaks to HUD’s obligation to
provide the assisted family with the financial means to remain
in the event that the family elects to do so. It states in relevant
part:
              [T]he assisted family may elect to
              remain in the same project in
              which the family was residing on
              the date of the eligibility event for
              the project, and if, during any
              period the family makes such an
              election and continues to so reside,
              the rent for the dwelling unit of the
              family in such project exceeds the
              applicable payment standard
              established pursuant to subsection
              (o) of this section for the unit, the