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

1,403 chars 
The majority contends that “[a]fter those documents
have expired, extending any of their limitations would in effect
be subjecting the property owners to a perpetual tenancy.”
Maj. Op. at 25 n.11. I suppose, then, that, the majority’s fear
of a perpetual tenancy is really a concern that Congress has
saddled landlords with model tenants who, with their vouchers,
pay equal to or above market rent. In other words, the crux of
the disagreement between the majority and myself is that my
colleagues believe that landlords are not sufficiently protected
by the above-listed limitations on the right to remain and
indeed require an additional measure of protection—one that
is entirely judicially-crafted and finds support in neither the
text of the statute nor the agency’s longstanding interpretation.
       15
           I would remand the question of whether Harvey had
good cause to evict the Hayes family, rather than decide it in
the first instance, as the District Court did not reach this issue.
I note, though, the complexities of determining what
constitutes “good cause” in the special context of the enhanced
voucher statute. See Barrientos, 2007 WL 7213974 at *7-*9
(holding that a landlord’s desire to increase the market rent is
not “good cause”); Tenant-Based Assistance: Enhanced
Vouchers, 81 Fed. Reg. 74372, 74374-75 (Oct. 26, 2016)
(HUD specifically requesting comments on what should