Flamm v. Real-Blt, Inc., 168 Mont. 351 (1975)

Citation: Flamm v. Real-Blt, Inc., 168 Mont. 351 (1975)
Parent Document: Flamm v. Real-Blt, Inc., 168 Mont. 351 (1975)
Jurisdiction: Montana (state)
Effective Date: 1975-11-26
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8068368/flamm-v-real-blt-inc/ ↗

Full Text

726 chars

Here the rent supplement contract and regulatory agreement do not appear to create any more governmental control than would be expected in any commercial transaction securing a substantial loan and receiving rent supplements of some proportion. Each agreement, one with FHA, and the other with HUD, contains provisions primarily to protect the money being advanced by the United States. Nowhere are the elements of urban renewal, public housing, control over prospective tenants and the limitation of them to “low income”, special concessions by any governmental agency for reduced interest rates, guaranteed return of investment, relief from any taxes either state or federal, or acquisition of land by any governmental body.

Other Sections in This Document (22)

Full Text