Theodore Hayes v. Philip Harvey, 903 F.3d 32 (2018)

Citation: Theodore Hayes v. Philip Harvey, 903 F.3d 32 (2018)
Parent Document: Theodore Hayes v. Philip Harvey, 903 F.3d 32 (2018)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 2018-08-31
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4531965/theodore-hayes-v-philip-harvey/ ↗

Full Text

1,078 chars

The District Court concluded that Harvey was obligated
to comply with the program’s requirements because he was “a
party to a tenant-based HAP contract and related lease,” which
were “governed by, and subject to, . . . the Section 8 statute.”
Hayes, 186 F. Supp. 3d at 433. But nothing in the enhanced
voucher provision limits its effect to the original owner. See
42 U.S.C. § 1437f(t). Indeed, § 1437f(t)(1)(C) provides only
two conditions under which enhanced voucher eligibility
terminates: when the family moves and when the voucher is
used by someone other than the original family. Neither
involves the opt-out owner’s sale of the property. Although
the Section 8 scheme is generally administered through the use
of contracts and leases, nothing in the statute itself conditions
its effect in all circumstances on common law devices.
Accordingly, the enhanced voucher provision applies even to
landlords who choose not to enter into HAP contracts. See
Park Vill. Apartment Tenants Ass’n v. Mortimer Howard Tr.,
636 F.3d 1150, 1161–62 (9th Cir. 2011) (holding that property

Other Sections in This Document (144)

Full Text