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
Northgate Housing Limited Partnership v. White
No. S1046-03 CnC (Vt. Super. Ct. Chittendon County January 10, 2005) ; Clearinghouse Number: 55835
Description
Tenant Has No Private Right of Action Against Landlord Under HUD Regulations
Abstract
Finding that defendant tenant had no private right of action, the
court granted plaintiff landlord’s motion for summary
judgment on tenant’s counterclaim that landlord violated her
federal rights. Landlord claimed to have initiated an eviction
proceeding against tenant, a longtime active tenant organizer,
because tenant refused to sign a lease amendment giving landlord
the right to terminate a lease should a resident engage in certain
criminal activity in or around the apartment complex. Tenant
counterclaimed that, in violation of state law, the landlord filed
the eviction claim to retaliate against her for joining the tenant
organization’s board. She also claimed that landlord violated
her rights under U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) tenant organization regulations and her First Amendment free
speech rights. Although the heading of 12 U.S.C. §
1715z-1b(b), “Rights of Tenants,” may be
rights-creating language, the court found, the entire subsection
directed the HUD secretary to regulate landlords receiving HUD
assistance rather than tenants. Because the statute focused on
those regulated rather than the class of beneficiaries, the section
did not confer an implied right of action under Alexander v.
Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (2001) (Clearinghouse No. 51,706). Thus
regulations enacted under the statute’s authority could not
confer implied rights of action. The court also rejected
tenant’s supremacy clause and free speech claims. However,
the court denied landlord’s summary judgment motion regarding
tenant’s retaliatory eviction counterclaim.
Additional Information
Files
- Amended Answer to Count I of Complaint, Counterclaim, and Third-Party Complaint
- Memorandum in Opposition to Third-Party Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, And to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment
- Defendant's Surreply Memorandum in Opposition to Third-Party Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, and to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment
- Entry
- Motion to Reconsider
- Entry
