Browse cases by category
- Attorneys & Legal Services
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Procedure & Administrative Law
- Civil Rights
- Consumer
- Criminal
- Disability
- Economic Development
- Education
- Elections
- Employment
- Environmental Justice
- Evidence
- Family Law
- Food Programs
- Government and Governmental Services
- Guardianship & Conservatorship
- Health
- Housing
- Immigration
- Juveniles
- License (Auto & Others)
- Mental Health
- Migrants
- Native Americans
- Other
- Prisons
- Public Utilities & Energy
- Rural Issues
- Senior Citizens
- Social Security & SSI
- Taxation
- Torts
- Unemployment Compensation & Unemployment Insurance
- Veterans & Military
- Welfare
- Wills & Estates
- Workforce Development
Martinez v. Roscoe
CIV 93-1156 LH/DJS (D.N.M. Dec. 27, 1995) ; Clearinghouse Number: 51124
Description
Landlords Permanently Enjoined from Managing Section 236 Apartment Complex
Abstract
The district court has permanently enjoined defendant landlords
from failing to comply with a consent decree entered earlier
between the parties. Plaintiffs are tenants in a Section 236
apartment complex. Pursuant to a 1993 consent decree, defendants
were permanently enjoined from (1) attempting to evict any tenants
who had complied with HUD-approved lease requirements; (2) altering
the HUD-approved lease requirements; (3) violating Section 236 of
the National Housing Act, 12 U.S.C. § 1715z-1 and 24 C.F.R.
§ 236; and (4) acting in any managerial capacity involving the
apartment complex contrary to the terms of a 1992 settlement
agreement between defendants and HUD. All management duties,
rights, and responsibilities were assigned to a third-party
management company. In June 1995, defendants notified plaintiffs
that they had terminated the contract with the third-party
management company and had transferred management responsibility to
a new company in which defendants had a substantial ownership
interest. They further notified plaintiffs that their current
leases were to be superseded by new month-to-month leases attached
to the notice. HUD advised tenants to disregard defendants'
notice and to continue to pay rent to the third-party management
company. When named plaintiff refused to pay rent to
defendant's management company, defendants sought to evict her.
Plaintiffs alleged that defendants' unilateral attempts to
assume managerial duties at the complex violated the terms of the
previously entered injunction. The district court permanently
enjoined defendants from acting in any managerial capacity with
respect to the complex, including (1) collecting rent from tenants
and requiring them to sign new leases; (2) attempting to evict or
seek damages from any tenants; (3) attempting to substitute any
leases that are not HUD approved; or (4) further violating the
court's previous order. The court awarded plaintiffs $16,955 in
attorney fees.
Additional Information
Files
- Plaintiffs' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction
- Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction
- Permanent Injunction
- Plaintiffs' Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees
- Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees
- Memorandum Opinion
- Judgment
