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

1,472 chars

HUD’s final rule, issued in 1984, continued to require
“good cause” for all mid-lease terminations and nonrenewals.
49 Fed. Reg. 12,215, 12,231 (March 29, 1984). In addressing
14432        BARRIENTOS v. 1801-1825 MORTON LLC
owners’ comments about the creation of a “ ‘perpetual ten-
ancy’ terminable only for cause,” HUD noted that it “shares
the concern that [the new requirement] could reduce the
desire of private landlords to offer units for rental under the
program,” but that “the program options open to [HUD] must
accord with the 1981 statutory prohibition of a termination of
tenancy in section 8 existing housing other than for statutory
good cause grounds.” Id. It further indicated its desire to keep
“[t]enancy requirements . . . as simple as possible, with mini-
mal demands on the owner beyond the normal requirements
of an unsubsidized tenancy.” Id. at 12,233. Finally, it indi-
cated “that a comp[re]hensive regulatory definition of good
cause . . . is neither possible nor desirable,” and, therefore,
“[t]he good cause category should remain open to case by
case determination by the courts.” Id. However, for the first
time, HUD chose to provide “examples of ‘other good
cause,’ ” including among them “a business or economic rea-
son for termination of the tenancy (such as . . . desire to rent
the unit at a higher rental).” Id. at 12,233-34. This definition
is currently codified at 24 C.F.R. § 982.310(d)(1)(iv), the fed-
eral regulation before us.

Other Sections in This Document (60)

Full Text