2225 New York Ave. Ltd. by GCJM, Inc. v. Cisneros

Fifth Circuit

2225 New York Ave. Ltd. by GCJM, Inc. v. Cisneros

38 F.3d 210, 1994 WL 600811

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedNovember 17, 1994

Docket94-10236

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 38 F.3d 210 (2225 New York Ave. Ltd. by GCJM, Inc. v. Cisneros) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

2225 New York Ave. Ltd. by GCJM, Inc. v. Cisneros, 38 F.3d 210, 1994 WL 600811 (5th Cir. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This appeal turns on the construction of 42 U.S.C. § 1437f(e)(2)(C), which states:

Adjustments in the maximum rents under subparagraphs (A) and (B) shall not result in material differences between the rents charged for assisted units and unassisted units of similar quality, type, and age in the same market area, as determined by the Secretary.

* * * * * *

The Secretary may not reduce the contract rents in effect on or after April 15, 1987, for newly constructed, substantially rehabilitated, or moderately rehabilitated projects assisted under this section (including projects assisted under this section as in effect prior to November 30, 1983), unless the project has been refinanced in a manner that reduces the periodic payments of the owner.

Appellee 2225 New York Avenue, Ltd., owns and operates an apartment complex that was renovated for low-income housing pursuant to the Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation Program, a rent subsidy program promulgated by HUD. 42 U.S.C. § 1437f. Some years after HUD approved the contractual arrangements by which appellee contracted *211 to participate in this program, and notwithstanding the above-quoted language, HUD attempted retroactively to “correct” the initial rents provided for in the transaction. There’s no contention that the project has been refinanced. The effect of this “correction” would be to lower the rents appellee was permitted to charge its low-income tenants, and thus to disadvantage appellee economically. The limited partnership filed suit for declaratory and injunctive relief to halt the threatened rent rollback and prevailed before the district court. 842 F.Supp. 924.

On appeal, both parties assert arguments essentially identical to those weighed in two other recent cases before courts of appeals. Both of those courts of appeals construed the above-quoted statutory language to forbid the position that HUD has taken. Terrace Housing Associates Ltd. v. Cisneros, 32 F.3d 461 (10th Cir.1994); Foxglenn Investors Limited Partnership v. Cisneros, 35 F.3d 947 (1994). We agree with the analysis and conclusions of our sister circuits and adopt them as our own. Further writing by this court would be pointless. For these reasons, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

This appeal turns on the construction of 42 U.S.C. § 1437f(e)(2)(C), which states:

Adjustments in the maximum rents under subparagraphs (A) and (B) shall not result in material differences between the rents charged for assisted units and unassisted units of similar quality, type, and age in the same market area, as determined by the Secretary.

* * * * * *

The Secretary may not reduce the contract rents in effect on or after April 15, 1987, for newly constructed, substantially rehabilitated, or moderately rehabilitated projects assisted under this section (including projects assisted under this section as in effect prior to November 30, 1983), unless the project has been refinanced in a manner that reduces the periodic payments of the owner.

Appellee 2225 New York Avenue, Ltd., owns and operates an apartment complex that was renovated for low-income housing pursuant to the Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation Program, a rent subsidy program promulgated by HUD. 42 U.S.C. § 1437f. Some years after HUD approved the contractual arrangements by which appellee contracted *211 to participate in this program, and notwithstanding the above-quoted language, HUD attempted retroactively to “correct” the initial rents provided for in the transaction. There’s no contention that the project has been refinanced. The effect of this “correction” would be to lower the rents appellee was permitted to charge its low-income tenants, and thus to disadvantage appellee economically. The limited partnership filed suit for declaratory and injunctive relief to halt the threatened rent rollback and prevailed before the district court. 842 F.Supp. 924.

On appeal, both parties assert arguments essentially identical to those weighed in two other recent cases before courts of appeals. Both of those courts of appeals construed the above-quoted statutory language to forbid the position that HUD has taken. Terrace Housing Associates Ltd. v. Cisneros, 32 F.3d 461 (10th Cir.1994); Foxglenn Investors Limited Partnership v. Cisneros, 35 F.3d 947 (1994). We agree with the analysis and conclusions of our sister circuits and adopt them as our own. Further writing by this court would be pointless. For these reasons, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 F.3d 210, 1994 WL 600811, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/2225-new-york-ave-ltd-by-gcjm-inc-v-cisneros-ca5-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack