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

431 chars
*613Because the security deposits and arrear-age arrangements required by TECO are not paid to THA, are not within the HUD definition of rent, and are not compensation for the use of land, they are not considered rent under the Brooke Amendment. Thus, the district court correctly concluded that THA’s proposed conversion from cheekmetering to retail service does not violate the Brooke Amendment, 42 U.S.C. § 1487a. C. Due Process