Grier v. United States Department of Housing & Urban Development, 418 U.S. App. D.C. 185 (2015)

Citation: Grier v. United States Department of Housing & Urban Development, 418 U.S. App. D.C. 185 (2015)
Parent Document: Grier v. United States Department of Housing & Urban Development, 418 U.S. App. D.C. 185 (2015)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 2015-07-14
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2816866/grier-v-united-states-departmen... ↗

Full Text

1,445 chars

After determining that the penalty for Section 8 violations
was to be $450,000 and the penalty for Section 236 violations
$262,500, the ALJ then reduced both penalties by 25%, to
$337,500 and $196,875, respectively. Mantua Gardens, 2013
WL 663168, at *22. In making these reductions the ALJ
explained that, pursuant to 24 C.F.R. § 30.80, in determining a
penalty amount he must weigh, inter alia, the factor of “[s]uch
other matters as justice may require.” In this case, the ALJ
stated, testimony from a HUD official showed that HUD had
chosen its requested penalty amount of $1,260,000 for the
Section 8 violations in an attempt to bankrupt Grier and Mantua
Gardens. Id. at *11. Consequently, according to the ALJ, HUD
had conducted its penalty analysis in bad faith, and justice
required the penalty reductions. Id. The Secretary, however,
vacated the ALJ’s 25% reductions, determining that the ALJ
misinterpreted the testimony of the HUD official as suggesting
that HUD had set out to bankrupt Mantua Gardens and Grier. In
the Secretary’s view the testimony was not an indication that
HUD sought to bankrupt Grier and Mantua Gardens, but instead
showed that HUD used the “ability to pay” factor to actually
reduce the penalty amount it would be requesting. Sec’y’s Op.
at 11–13, Supp. JA 11–13. While the ALJ expressed reliance on
the entire testimony of the witness, he apparently was
specifically interpreting the witness’s statement that:

Other Sections in This Document (46)

Full Text