Section 205

Citation: Section 205
Parent Document: Cole v. Harris, 187 U.S. App. D.C. 156 (1977)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 1977-11-14
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/7891523/cole-v-harris/ ↗

Full Text

1,254 chars

As a closing note of caution, I would ask the majority to consider the consequences of what may well have happened here had HUD accepted the meaning of the notice clause as the majority has interpreted it now. If HUD knew that once it acquired a building with tenants, however involuntary the acquisition, these tenants would become “displaced persons” if HUD ever served them with notice to vacate “for” another project, then what could very likely have been the HUD response? HUD might well have insisted, as it had every legal right to do, that the mortgagee evict all the tenants before HUD would accept the property and pay out the mortgage insurance. Being evicted by the mortgagee, the tenants would clearly not have been “displaced persons” according to the interpretation in Caramico and even more squarely on point in Alexander,52 In brief, as the notice definition now stands in this Circuit, there will be greater incentive for HUD to insist upon taking title without tenants in occupancy, thereby avoiding what it regards as the “substantial” financial burden of the majority’s interpretation.53 The irony of the result in this case is that the majority may be hurting the urban poor among the displaced more than helping them. V. CONCLUSION

Other Sections in This Document (158)

Full Text