Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Crochet v. Housing Authority, 37 F.3d 607 (1994)

Citation
Crochet v. Housing Authority, 37 F.3d 607 (1994)
Parent Document
Crochet v. Housing Authority, 37 F.3d 607 (1994)
Effective Date
1994-11-04

Other Sections in This Document (37)

Full Text

671 chars
Nearly twenty years ago, the Tenth Circuit noted that rent “is a compensation or income which the owner of land receives from a tenant for the use or occupation of the land.” Peterson v. Oklahoma City Hous. Auth., 545 F.2d 1270, 1274 (10th Cir.1976). The court noted, however, that a security deposit was not “compensation ... for the use ... of the land” but more in the nature of a trust fund. Thus, because a security deposit was not compensation for the use of land, a security deposit was not rent under the Brooke Amendment. Id. In a similar fashion, arrearages are not compensation for the use of land, and should not be considered rent under the Brooke Amendment.