§ 1437f

Citation: § 1437f
Parent Document: Nozzi v. Housing Authority, 806 F.3d 1178 (2015)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 2015-11-30
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3158630/nozzi-v-housing-authority/ ↗

Full Text

1,090 chars

A proper notice would have made plaintiffs aware of the
seriousness of the Housing Authority’s actions. It might have
stated, for example, that the Housing Authority estimated that
“approximately 45% of [the] approximately 45,000 Section
8 tenants [would] be adversely affected by the April 2004
[payment standard] decrease, and [would] have to pay an
average of $104 more in rent each month if they chose to
remain in their current units.” It might also have provided
beneficiaries with a number to call in case they had questions
about the upcoming change or needed help finding a more
affordable apartment in light of the change. Instead, the
Housing Authority’s flyer failed even to achieve the
minimum that due process requires: an explanation of the
change to the payment standard and its likely effect upon
tenants—an explanation that could reasonably be understood
by the average Section 8 beneficiary. The failure to do so
deprived the plaintiffs of the necessary one-year period of
stable benefits in which to seek to avoid any impending
hardship, and thus, of due process of law.

Other Sections in This Document (154)

Full Text