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

1,982 chars 
19
accept enhanced vouchers as part of a tenant’s rental payment
cannot then evict those tenants for nonpayment. See Park Vill.,
636 F.3d at 1156 (“The statute gives ‘assisted families’ the
right ‘to remain in the same project.’ The statute also
authorizes owners to raise their rents to a reasonable market
rate and to receive a housing assistance payment, by means of
an enhanced voucher, to cover the authorized increases in rent.
It does not authorize owners to raise their rents to a reasonable
market rate, but then to refuse to accept payment by means of
an enhanced voucher, and evict an ‘assisted family’ for
nonpayment of rent.”); Feemster v. BSA L.P., 548 F.3d 1063,
1069 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (“Neither the U.S. Housing Act nor
HUD’s interpretation of that Act bars landlords from
terminating a tenancy on any ground permitted by D.C. law.
One thing that [the landlord] may not do, however, is refuse to
accept payment by voucher and then contend that eviction is
warranted for nonpayment of rent.”). Our dissenting colleague
further suggests that our interpretation of Park Village—where
a midterm eviction for nonpayment was at issue—is flawed
because we “conflate[] one of the Ninth Circuit’s holdings with
the other.” Dissenting Op. at 21. The majority does not,
however, “conflate” Park Village’s holdings. Rather, it agrees
with the Ninth Circuit’s interpretation regarding the “may elect
to remain” language insofar as it lends meaning to the 2000
amendment—that tenants are only required to pay their
“statutorily prescribed portion of the rent,” and that owners
cannot “refuse to accept payment by means of an enhanced
voucher, and evict an ‘assisted family’ for nonpayment of
rent.” Park Vill., 636 F.3d at 1156.
       Here we are faced not with an eviction for nonpayment,
as in Park Village, but with a nonrenewal of a naturally expired
rental agreement. This is a meaningful distinction. It makes
sense that a property owner who reaps the benefit of opting out