Rucker v. Davis, 237 F.3d 1113 (2001)

Citation: Rucker v. Davis, 237 F.3d 1113 (2001)
Parent Document: Rucker v. Davis, 237 F.3d 1113 (2001)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 2001-01-24
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/7086389/rucker-v-davis/ ↗

Full Text

1,137 chars

HUD suggests we should place no importance on the availability of what clearly was an innocent owner defense in the forfeiture provision, pointing to the differences between civil forfeiture and lease eviction proceedings. Although different animals, the Supreme Court instructs that the meaning of one statute *1122may be illuminated by the language of another. Brown & Williamson, 529 U.S. at-, 120 S.Ct. at 1300-01. When dealing with two different statutes which not only govern the same subject matter but were also enacted at the same time in the same chapter of the same Act, we presume Congress meant them to be read consistently. HUD correctly points out that the forfeiture provision deals with forfeitures of the leasehold to the federal government, while § 1437d(i )(6) deals with eviction by local PHAs. Although different processes, the purpose of both is the same. Moreover, the result is the same: the tenant loses the leasehold interest, which is taken over by a governmental entity. It makes little sense to provide protections for the innocent tenant from the federal government but not from local housing authorities.2

Other Sections in This Document (190)

Full Text