Theodore Hayes v. Philip Harvey, 903 F.3d 32 (2018)

Citation: Theodore Hayes v. Philip Harvey, 903 F.3d 32 (2018)
Parent Document: Theodore Hayes v. Philip Harvey, 903 F.3d 32 (2018)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 2018-08-31
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4531965/theodore-hayes-v-philip-harvey/ ↗

Full Text

1,063 chars

3
         As discussed in Part II, infra, there is ample evidence
suggesting that Congress was concerned with HUD’s failure to
act despite the threat of increasing opt-outs. Thus, it enacted
these provisions to compel HUD to act—not to compel
property owners.
       4
         As the panel stated before the grant of rehearing en
banc:
       In our view, through the 2000 amendment
       Congress intended to make clear that, following
       a valid opt-out, HUD could not force an assisted
       family to leave the unit and that the family’s
       enhanced vouchers must be credited toward their
       rental obligations. . . . But after a rental
       agreement naturally expires, so too do the
       attendant rental obligations. At that point, the
       statute goes silent. Nothing in its text explicitly
       or impliedly obligates property owners to
       continuously        renew       enhanced-voucher
       tenancies.
Hayes v. Harvey, 874 F.3d 98, 106 n.3 (3d Cir.), reh’g en banc
granted, judgment vacated, 878 F.3d 446 (3d Cir. 2017).

Other Sections in This Document (144)

Full Text