Suella Debolt v. Michael Espy, 47 F.3d 777 (1995)

Citation: Suella Debolt v. Michael Espy, 47 F.3d 777 (1995)
Parent Document: Suella Debolt v. Michael Espy, 47 F.3d 777 (1995)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 1995-05-05
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/689152/suella-debolt-v-michael-espy/ ↗

Full Text

752 chars

We believe the plaintiff also lacks standing to challenge this alleged violation. In short, the FmHA’s failure to review her termination notice was not a cause of her eviction. The plaintiff was evicted because her family outgrew her apartment. She certainly cannot claim that she would have remained in her apartment if only the FmHA had discovered the technical flaws in the landlord’s termination notice, for the regulation specifically states that the landlord “may reissue a revised notice if the borrower believes the action is still warranted.” The plaintiff would have been evicted regardless of whether the FmHA properly reviewed her termination notice, and therefore, the plaintiff lacks standing to challenge this alleged FmHA violation. IY.

Other Sections in This Document (48)

Full Text