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
Mays v. Cuomo
No. C-1-96-929 (S.D. Ohio May 21, 1998). ; Clearinghouse Number: 52265
Description
Court Dismisses Challenge to Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Failure to Impose Low-income Use Restrictions and Project-Based Rental Assistance on Property Lost in Foreclosure
Abstract
The district court granted the motion of defendant Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD’s) to dismiss for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction plaintiff tenants of multifamily
housing projects’ suit claiming that HUD abused its
discretion when it foreclosed on the projects, acquired them in
sale, and agreed to sell to a housing authority without imposing
low-income use restrictions and project-based Section 8 assistance
conditions. The court agreed with HUD’s claim that amendments
to the National Housing Act (in particular, section 204 of the
Independent Appropriations Act of 1997) gave it unfettered
discretion to establish the terms of the management and disposition
of property and mortgages. The court rejected plaintiffs’
description of the dispute as the decision to foreclose privately
owned property; the court held that it instead involved the terms
established for the management and disposition of HUD-held
mortgages and of property in which HUD was a mortagee-in-possession
and then an owner. The court also rejected plaintiffs’ claim
that 24 C.F.R. part 290 provided the specific law to decide whether
there had been an abuse of discretion since the language of section
204 clearly illustrated that Congress intended t the section to
preempt other statutes and regulations, including those that might
define standards restricting HUD’s authority.
Additional Information
Files
No files available.
