porno porno izle sikis

Other Cases on Opt-Outs (Alphabetical Order)

NHLP has compiled a list of other cases that may be useful for advocates developing their own pleadings.

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 and request that he send you the case.

Thank you for your patience.

1372 Kenyon St. Tenants' Ass'n v. Kenyon LP, No. 05ca001236 (D.C. Sup. Ct., filed Feb. 18, 2005).

Challenge to various actions of manager of project-based Section 8 property to assume ownership and to opt-out of Section 8 contract, in violation of rights of tenant association under partnership agreement, other contracts and duties. Court issued order finding tenant association had valid option to purchase.

183rd St./187th St. Tenants' Association v. Cuomo No. 00-4174 (S.D. Fla., filed Oct. 2000).

Challenge to opt-out based on one-year notice requirement in 42 U.S.C. § 1437f(c)(8) and fair housing grounds, including violation of the fair housing act, and of HUD's duty to affirmatively further fair housing pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 3608.

Baker v. Property Investors of Connecticut, 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 also caused the public housing authority to threaten to terminate tenants’ voucher assistance. Tenants obtained restraining orders against eviction and suspension of voucher assistance, and plaintiffs subsequently settled their remaining claims. Court granted HUD's motion to dismiss for lack of standing.

East Village Tenant’s Council v. U.S. Dep’t of HUD(Dist. Colo., unfiled).

Section 8 opt-out: draft claims v. HUD and owner, including Fair Housing Act and failure to give notice including the reason for the nonrenewal to tenants and to HUD, pursuant to former 42 U.S.C. § 1437f(c)(8). City acquired property through condemnation and negotiated sale. However, project-based Section 8 contract was not reinstated because property needed demolition and replacement, and HUD claimed no authority to preserve Section 8 contract unless replacement units actually existed.

Oxford Resident's Council v. Deepwater Investment LLC, No. 98-2-28244-4 SEA (Wash. Sup. Ct., filed Nov. 25, 1998).

Challenge to prepayment of 221(d)(3) loan and proposed termination of Section 8 contract based on state notice law and Fair Housing claims. Includes settlement agreement for partial extension of project-based Section 8 contract, and right of first refusal for city to purchase project.

Park Hill Tenants Council v. HUD, No. 00-N-1454 (D. Colo. filed Aug. 2000).

Unsuccessful challenge to Section 8 opt-out, with claims brought against HUD, state agency, and owner, based on federal statutes, regulatory agreement and Fair Housing Act; case settled upon owner’s agreement to permit tenants to stay with enhanced vouchers.

Prince Hall Chambre Tenants Ass’n v. U.S. Dep’t of Hous. and Urban Dev., No. CA3-04CV-13251 (N.D. Tex. filed 2004).

Tenants of Prince Hall Chambre challenged a previous mortgage prepayment and planned termination of Section 8 contract by owner and HUD, as well as owner’s refusal to provide Section 8 for income-eligible households and to permit replacement vouchers to be used at troubled property undergoing rehabilitation. Claims based upon federal statutes, regulations and contracts requiring full utilization of Section 8 subsidies (12 U.S.C. §1715z-1b(b) and 24 C.F.R. §886.129 and §245.205), the enhanced voucher statute (42 U.S.C. §1437f(t), Section 250 of the National Housing Act governing HUD prepayment approvals (12 U.S.C. §1715z-15), fair housing laws, and the HAP contract and Use Agreement requiring habitable conditions. Owner and HUD entered into stipulation providing for use of vouchers in repaired units, and certification of all other tenants eligible for project-based Section 8, and case settled.

Serrano v. Martinez (C. Dist. Cal., filed Sept. 2002).

Plaintiff scattered-site tenants seek declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the termination of project-based Section 8 contract and to enforce notice and right of first refusal requirements.

Young v. United States Dep’t of HUD, No. C-85-4642-EFL (N.D. Ca. prelim. inj. denied Sept. 1985), injunction pending appeal denied, No. 85-2584 (9th Cir. 1985) (Clearinghouse No. 39,655).

Unsuccessful challenge to Section 8 opt-out in 1985 as Fair Housing Act violation using disparate impact theory.

ankara escort istanbul escort bayan
ankara escort istanbul escort bayan