DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Section 8

Citation
Section 8
Parent Document
Theodore Hayes v. Philip Harvey, 874 F.3d 98 (2017)
Effective Date
2017-10-18
Original Source
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4435296/theodore-hayes-v-philip-harvey/ ↗

Other Sections in This Document (260)

Full Text

1,380 chars 
14
        We need not read past § 1437f(t)(1)(B)’s plain language
to identify its role in the statutory scheme. Following the initial
notice year, § 1437f(c)(8)(A) obligates HUD to provide
assistance “enabling [the assisted family] to choose the place
they wish to rent, which is likely to include the dwelling unit
in which they currently reside.” § 1437f(c)(8)(A). But if the
post-opt-out rent for the “unit in which they currently reside”
exceeds the payment standard under § 1437f(o)(1)(B), how can
tenants be assured that HUD will meet its obligation under §
1437f(c)(8)(A)? Enter subparagraph (B) of the enhanced
voucher provision, § 1437f(t)(1)(B). It obligates HUD to
provide the assisted family with the financial means to remain
after the notice period even if the required assistance exceeds
the ordinary voucher’s payment standard. The rent becomes its
own unit-specific payment standard. Hence the term
“enhanced voucher.” In order for an assisted family to actually
benefit from that assistance, § 1437f(t)(1)(B) necessarily
requires that enhanced vouchers be credited toward their rental
obligations. This ensures that, so long as the family remains
eligible under § 1437f(t)(1)(C), they may exercise their
election to remain without being required to pay more than
their statutorily prescribed portion of the rent. It makes their
election to remain meaningful. 3