- Attorney Resource Center
- Assisted Housing Preservation
- HUD Multifamily Housing Preservation
- RHS/RD Housing Preservation
- Basic Guides to Preservation Advocacy
- Public Housing
- Section 3 Program
- Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers
- Domestic Violence and Housing
- Foreclosure Crisis
- Language Access to Housing (LEP)
- Reasonable Accommodation for Persons w/ Disabilities
- Utility Allowances in Federally Assisted Housing
- Low Income Housing Tax Credit
- Resident Engagement
- Choice Neighborhoods Initiative
- Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD)
- Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
- Assisted Housing Preservation
- Trainings & Webinars
- Housing Justice Network
- CA HBOR
- Help for Tenants, Homeowners, & Homeless
- Support NHLP
- About NHLP
Other Enhanced Voucher Cases (in alphabetical order)
Dear website visitor:
The following cases are listed for your information. The cases are not currently linked to any files. We expect that they will be linked by the end of August of 2010. If you need to secure a copy of any of these cases and you are a member of the Housing Justice Network, please contact Francis Antonio at firstname.lastname@example.org and request that he send you the case.
Thank you for your patience.
Baker v. Property Investors of Connecticut, No. Civ. No. 302CV1839 AHN (D. Conn. TRO Oct. 21, 2002).
Tenants of New Era Court filed suit in federal court to prevent evictions and termination of voucher assistance, following rent and security deposit disputes associated with issuance of enhanced vouchers. The vouchers were issued just two weeks before the termination of the project-based contract, resulting in a chaotic transition which included a gap in assistance where neither the project-based assistance nor vouchers were effective, allegedly improper rent determinations, and an inability of tenants to pay the increased security deposit. The resulting disputes have also cause the public housing authority to threaten to terminate tenants’ voucher assistance. Tenants obtained restraining orders against eviction and suspension of voucher assistance, and plaintiffs remain in settlement on the remainder of the claims. Court granted HUD's motion to dismiss for lack of standing.
Browning v. Martinez, No: C-1-01-152 (S. D. Ohio 2001).
Tenants of Audobon Park challenged HUD's failure to issue vouchers for each unit of a Sec. 236 project where owners prepaid the mortgage. Claims include: HUD's failure to enforce regulatory agreement, issue enhanced vouchers, and notify residents of voucher rights, brought through the APA; a due process claim against HUD and private owners; and violation of the regulatory agreement, state contract law claim, and breach of transfer agreement brought against private owner defendants.
Cathey v. Woodford Apts., No.C-1-01-426 (S.D. Ohio July 31, 2001).
Challenge to owner's refusal to accept enhanced vouchers and allow tenants to remain after prepayment of Section 236 mortgage. Case was settled by an agreed order providing that plaintiffs could remain in place with the vouchers, and are subject to future termination only for good cause.
Hicks v. Martin No. Civ. S-01-0606-LKK (E.D.Ca., TRO March 27, 2001).
Challenge by tenant of Country Village to owner's refusal to accept enhanced vouchers after opt-out. Owner agreed by settlement and stipulated order to accept the voucher.
Hill v. Delrob, Inc., No. 02CVH-02678 (Ohio Muni Ct. 2002).
Tenant brought suit in state court against property owner for failure to accept enhanced vouchers. Court issued a TRO that requires the owner: to make repairs in order to pass PHA housing quality standard inspection, to process required documents to utilize the enhanced voucher, and to permit plaintiff to use voucher for her rental unit. Claims settled in a consent order entered at preliminary injunction hearing, tenant allowed to remain in the same unit using the enhanced voucher.
James v. Cincinnati Metropolitan Housing Authority, No. A0202269 (Hamilton Cnty. Ct., filed March 13, 2002).
Tenants filed suit in state court to challenge housing authority’s refusal to issue enhanced vouchers after opt-out. Two tenants were "screened" for having a past debt to the housing authority, and faced eviction for non-payment of rent after landlord raises rents. Complaint alleges violations of 42 USC § 1437f(t), due process, HUD rules, and a breach of contract. (HUD was not named in the action.) The housing authority could produce no evidence of debt for one tenant at the TRO hearing and granted a voucher, and for the other tenant it effectively mooted the due process claim by issuing a new voucher, then giving notice and an administrative hearing to terminate that voucher for the debt. The court denied both the TRO and a preliminary injunction, and was unpersuaded by the 1437f(t) claim.