Barrientos v. 1801-1825 Morton LLC (2009)

Citation: Barrientos v. 1801-1825 Morton LLC (2009)
Parent Document: Barrientos v. 1801-1825 Morton LLC (2009)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 2009-10-09
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3065171/barrientos-v-1801-1825-morton-llc/ ↗

Full Text

2,411 chars

The second program is called the enhanced voucher pro-
gram, a recent legislative creation aimed at keeping tenants in
their homes despite changing market conditions. Beginning in
the 1960s, the federal government subsidized and insured
mortgage loans for the construction of housing for assisted
tenants (“section 236 program”). See Housing and Urban
Development Act of 1968, Pub. L. No. 90-448, §§ 201(a),
236(a)-(g), 82 Stat. 476, 498-503 (codified as amended at 12
U.S.C. § 1715z-1 (2000)). Owners of the housing were
allowed to prepay their loans after twenty years, at which time
they could exit the assisted housing program. 24 C.F.R.
§ 221.524(a)(ii) (1970). In the 1980s, Congress became con-
cerned that a large proportion of assisted housing would dis-
appear from the market when owners prepaid their section
236 loans. To prevent massive relocation and an inadequate
supply of assisted housing, Congress passed a number of laws
aimed at restricting the prepayment option. See Low Income
Housing Preservation and Resident Homeownership Act of
1990, Pub. L. No. 101-625, § 601(a), 104 Stat. 4079, 4249
(1990); Emergency Low Income Housing Preservation Act of
1987, Pub. L. No. 100-242, Title II, 101 Stat. 1815, 1877-91
(1988). In 1999, however, Congress decided to take a differ-
ent approach. It allowed landlords to prepay their mortgages
but increased the available subsidy to fair market value so as
to allow the subsidized tenants to remain in the same apart-
ment after prepayment. See Pub. L. No. 106-74, § 538, 113
Stat. 1047, 1122-24 (1999) (currently codified as amended at
§ 1437f(t)).1 Thus, the enhanced voucher authority provides
that “the assisted family may elect to remain in the same proj-
ect in which the family was residing on the date” the loan was
  1
   Relevant amendments were enacted by the Military Construction
Appropriations Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 106-246, § 2801, 114 Stat. 511,
569 (2000), to clarify specifically that “the assisted family may elect to
remain in the same project” to receive increased government assistance.
14430       BARRIENTOS v. 1801-1825 MORTON LLC
prepaid, and that the government will pay the difference
between “rent for the dwelling unit” and the tenant’s required
contribution “during any period the family makes such an
election and continues to so reside” even as “rent may be
increased from time-to-time.” 42 U.S.C. § 1437f(t)(1)(B).

Other Sections in This Document (60)

Full Text