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

2,363 chars

[10] Responding to our invitation to HUD to express its
view on whether LARSO’s eviction controls actually conflict
with 24 C.F.R. § 982.310(d)(1)(iv), the United States informs
us that “LARSO’s eviction controls do not pose an obstacle
to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and
objectives of HUD’s regulation providing that ‘other good
cause’ for terminating a Section 8 tenancy ‘may’—but does
not necessarily—include a landlord’s desire to raise the rent.”
In support of its position, the United States first notes that the
statutory language and its own regulations expressly contem-
plate the interdependence of federal assisted housing law and
state and local housing law: 42 U.S.C. § 1437f(o)(7)(B)(ii)(I)
provides that the lease must contain terms that are “consistent
with State and local law”; § 1437f(o)(7)(E) mandates that the
HAP contract “shall provide” that “any relief [from termina-
tion] shall be consistent with applicable State and local law”;
24 C.F.R. § 982.308(c) allows PHA the right to “decline to
approve the tenancy if the PHA determines that the lease does
not comply with State or local law”; and § 982.310(e)(2)(i)
requires section 8 owners to use the eviction notice “used
under State or local law.” Second, the United States highlights
the use of “may” in 24 C.F.R. § 982.310(d)(1), which pro-
vides that “ ‘[o]ther good cause’ for termination of tenancy by
the owner may include, but is not limited to, any of the fol-
lowing examples.” It notes that “ ‘[m]ay’ is permissive and
connotes discretion, absent clear indication to the contrary.”
            BARRIENTOS v. 1801-1825 MORTON LLC            14449
Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae supporting affir-
mance of the district court (citing Fernandez v. Brock, 840
F.2d 622, 632 (9th Cir. 1988)). Third, the United States
argues that “[n]either the wording nor the intent of [24 C.F.R.
§ 982.310] gives a landlord an unqualified ‘right’ to terminate
a Section 8 tenancy because he wants to raise the rent,” as the
regulation utilizes “general terms” and intentionally leaves the
determination of “good cause” to the courts “on a case-by-
case basis.” Finally, the United States assures us that “HUD
has never interpreted 24 C.F.R. § 982.310 as prohibiting state
and local governments from providing additional protection
from eviction to tenants.”

Other Sections in This Document (60)

Full Text