- Attorney/Advocate Resource Center
- What's New
- Assisted Housing Preservation
- 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 and Energy Issues
- Low Income Housing Tax Credit
- Re-entry
- Resident Engagement
- Choice Neighborhoods Initiative
- Publications, Trainings, and Webinars
- Housing Justice Network
- Help for Tenants, Homeowners, and Homeless
- Support NHLP
- About NHLP
- Contact NHLP
August 2009 Bulletin Summaries
Foreclosure and Section 8 Tenancy: Federal Legislative Developments
The Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act (PTFA), part of the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act signed into law on May 20, 2009, is a much-needed expansion of the law governing the relationship between existing tenants and new owners of foreclosed rental properties. The PTFA protects tenants by requiring that a successor in interest of a foreclosed-upon property abide by the terms and conditions of the existing lease and that all bona fide tenants receive at least a ninety-day notice to vacate. This article responds to claims limiting the impact of the statute, with special attention to the PTFA’s effects on Section 8 tenants. It provides an interpretation of the law that gives Section 8 tenants the maximum protection, in accordance with Congressional intent, by extending as long as possible the time to find replacement housing or negotiate continued occupancy beyond any ninety-day notice period.
Quiet Title Claim Denied Following Attempted Prepayment of RHS 515 Loan
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has affirmed a federal district court decision restricting an owner of a Rural Housing Service (RHS) project from prepaying its loan through a quiet title action. In Schroeder v. United States, the court held that the Emergency Low Income Housing Preservation Act of 1987 (ELIHPA) applied to the Section 515 loan at issue, and limited the borrower’s ability to prepay the loan. Further, the court held that the district court’s refusal to quiet title on an equitable basis was appropriate, as it prevented the borrower from avoiding the prepayment restrictions. This article provides an overview of the case.
United States Agrees that HUD Voucher Regulations Do Not Preempt Local Eviction Controls
On June 19, 2009, the United States filed an amicus brief supporting affirmance of a district court’s judgment holding that local eviction control laws are not preempted by federal regulations governing tenancy termination under the Housing Choice Voucher program. In Barrientos v. 1801-1825 Morton, LLC, a landlord had sought to evict voucher tenants for reasons permissible under federal regulation but prohibited under the Los Angeles Rent Stabilization Ordinance (LARSO). Though the appeal remains pending in the Ninth Circuit, the United States’ brief and subsequent Notice issued by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) provide strong support for the position that HUD regulations cannot be interpreted to give federally assisted tenants fewer protections than they would receive as unassisted tenants. This article provides an overview of the case.
Courts Find Private Right of Action Under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act
With the advent of the foreclosure crisis and the apparent permanence of American military mobilization, the protections afforded by the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) have become increasingly important to those on active duty in our Armed Forces. The SCRA provides tenants and homeowners with defenses to adverse actions by creditors, mortgagees or landlords, but a major concern has been whether the judiciary will recognize a private right of action under the SCRA. Most recently, courts have held that a private right of action does exist and have provided servicemembers much-needed relief in the face of economic uncertainty. This article delineates the protections of the SCRA, with specific attention to foreclosure, examines recent cases determining that the SCRA contains an implied private right of action, and discusses possible future developments related to the SCRA.
Seventh Circuit Rules that City Can Take HUD-Subsidized Property Over Objection of HUD, Owners and Tenants
On April 9, 2009, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled that Joliet, Illinois could condemn a multifamily federally insured low-income housing complex over the objections of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the owners and the tenants. In City of Joliet, Illinois vs. New West, L.P., et al., the court found no impermissible conflict between the National Housing Act (NHA) and the Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 1997 (MAHRAA), as they embody the national policy goal of providing decent, safe and sanitary housing for low-income families, and the authority of the City of Joliet to condemn the 356 apartments of Evergreen Terrace I and II, which were insured and subsidized under the Section 221 and Section 8 programs. This article provides background and an overview of the case.
Federal One-Strike Law Does Not Preempt PHA from Granting Tenants the Right to Cure Lease Violations
In Housing Authority of Covington v. Turner, the Kentucky Court of Appeals recently added to the series of cases interpreting the reach of the federal “one-strike” law after the Supreme Court’s decision in Department of Housing and Urban Development v. Rucker. The Court of Appeals, the state’s intermediate court, held that the federal “one-strike” law for public housing did not preempt a lease provision allowing a tenant to remedy a breach of lease following drug-related criminal activity by a guest. After examining the reach of preemption in one-strike cases and the discretion afforded local housing authorities, the court concluded that there was no overriding conflict between the provision and the federal statute. This article provides an overview of the case.
