Theodore Hayes v. Philip Harvey, 874 F.3d 98 (2017)
- Citation
- Theodore Hayes v. Philip Harvey, 874 F.3d 98 (2017)
- Parent Document
- Theodore Hayes v. Philip Harvey, 874 F.3d 98 (2017)
- Jurisdiction
- United States (federal)
- Effective Date
- 2017-10-18
Other Sections in This Document (260)
- Theodore Hayes v. Philip Harvey, 874 F.3d 98 (2017)
- Theodore Hayes v. Philip Harvey, 874 F.3d 98 (2017)
- Theodore Hayes v. Philip Harvey, 874 F.3d 98 (2017)
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- § 1437f
- § 1437f
- § 1437f
- § 1437f
- § 1437f
- § 1487f
- § 1487f
- § 1487f
- § 1487f
- § 1487f
- § 1487f
- § 1487f
- § 1487f
- § 1437f
- § 1437f
- § 1437f
- § 1437f
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
Full Text
1,100 charsFISHER, Circuit Judge. In this appeal, we must decide whether the enhanced voucher provision of the United States Housing Act of 1937, 42 U.S.C. § 1437f(t), requires property owners to continuously renew enhanced-voucher tenancies. Theodore Hayes and Aqeela Fogle (the Hayes family) are a low-income family whose rent is subsidized by enhanced voucher assistance. Their eligibility to receive enhanced vouchers is contingent upon their continued tenancy in a unit currently owned by Philip E. Harvey. Toward the end of their most recent lease term, Harvey notified the Hayes family that he would not renew their lease. The Hayes family refused to vacate the premises, arguing that as enhanced-voucher tenants, they have an enforceable “right to remain” in their unit as long as it is offered for rental housing. The District Court disagreed and granted Harvey’s motion for summary judgment. Because we conclude that the enhanced voucher provision does not obligate property owners to renew enhanced-voucher tenancies after the initial lease term, we will affirm. I. Background A. Statutory Background