- 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
Brighton Village v. Martinez
C.A. NO. 00-CV-12311-GAO, sub nom. Brighton VIllage Nominee Trust v. Malyshev, 2004 WL 594974 (D.Mass. Mar. 23, 2004), Elderly and disabled project which prepaid its HUD-held mortgage in 1986 and opted-out of Section 8 in 1995, when regular vouchers were issued. Owner sued tenants in state court for nonpayment of rent when their vouchers did not cover the rents charged. Tenants filed third party complaint aginst HUD, which then removed case to federal court, challenging the prepayment as contrary to Section 250 of the National Housing Act, and the opt-out as illegal under then-applicable 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1437f(c)(9). Plaintiffs sought monetary relief for affected tenants who had to pay more with regular replacement vouchers until enhanced vouchers were issued in 2000 after the statute was changed to make them eligible. Tenants also opposed owner's motion to remand to state court. The trial court subsequently ruled that HUD violated both Section 250 and Section 1437f(c)(9), claims brought under the APA, and awarded financial restitution to the tenants under the APA's waiver of sovereign immunity.
Plaintiff's Memo in Support of Motion for Reconsideration (WPD)
Requests court to reconsider its ruling denying tenants prospective protection against adverse housing actions.
District Court's Decision Finding HUD Liable (PDF)
Holds HUD's actions in allowing prepayment of HUD-held mortgage that required HUD approval of prepayment in violation of Section 250, in allowing the owner to opt-out of his Section 8 contract in 1995 in violation of 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1437f(c)(9), and awarding financial restitution of unpaid rent subsidies to tenants under the APA's waiver of sovereign immunity.
Tenants' Reply to HUD's Memo in Further Support of HUD's Motion for Summary Judgment (WPD)
HUD's Reply to Tenant's Opposition to HUD's Motion for Summary Judgment (PDF)
Tenants' Reply to HUD Opposition to Tenants Motion for Summary Judgment (WPD)
In the context of opposing a motion to remand to state court, tenants' explain why a federal question is presented for their Section 250 claim.
This pleading is essentially the "Complaint" of the tenants, as third-party plaintiffs. Claims against the owner include breach of warranty of habitability and quiet enjoyment, discrimination based on disability and source of income, and unfair and deceptive practices. Claims against HUD include: Violation of APA for discrimination and failure to accommodate disabilities Violation of APA for failure to comply with Section 250 of the National Housing Act Violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1437f.