Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

§ 881

Citation
§ 881
Parent Document
United States v. Southland Management Corp., 326 F.3d 669 (2002)
Effective Date
2002-05-22

Other Sections in This Document (1123)

Full Text

1,790 chars
65
     furnished the inspection report to her superiors who,
     in turn, forwarded the inspection reports to defendants
     or their managing agent, and advised defendants and/or
     their agent of those repairs which were required to be
     made and requested that defendants and/or their agent
     inform HUD of the actions that would be taken, along
     with a timetable, to correct the deficiencies which HUD
     had identified. At her deposition, Vicki Gross, who
     testified as HUD’s representative, explained that
     properties receiving “below average” and
     “unsatisfactory” physical condition ratings in
     inspection reports are not “decent, safe, and
     sanitary.” And indeed, the conditions upon which the
     Government makes its affirmative allegation that the
     Jackson Apartments were not in a “decent, safe, and
     sanitary” condition are those same specific
     deficiencies which HUD’s inspector identified and which
     led him to assign the apartments the “below average”
     and “unsatisfactory” ratings. From this evidence,
     there can be no question but that HUD was fully aware
     of the conditions of the apartments, and specifically,
     of those deficiencies which it asserts made the
     apartments not “decent, safe, and sanitary.” And yet
     HUD, which was aware that defendants continued to
     submit HAP vouchers and receive payments throughout
     this time, allowed those payments to continue. HUD’s
     knowledge of the true conditions utterly belies HUD’s
     contention that the certifications were material,
     confirms HUD’s policy and practice of allowing housing
     assistance payments on properties that it knows are not
     decent, safe and sanitary, and dooms its claim against
     defendants.