DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Johnson v. United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (Hud), 911 F.2d 1302 (1990)

Citation
Johnson v. United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (Hud), 911 F.2d 1302 (1990)
Parent Document
Johnson v. United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (Hud), 911 F.2d 1302 (1990)
Effective Date
1990-10-29
Original Source
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/546951/johnson-v-united-states-departme... ↗

Other Sections in This Document (66)

Full Text

1,710 chars 
12
On October 24, 1988, the plaintiffs received notice of a 30-35% rent increase effective December 1, 1988. None of the plaintiffs can afford the rent increase and, for all three plaintiffs, the Hillvale complex is convenient to work and provides a stable environment for their children. Fearful that rent increases would force their eviction, plaintiffs filed the instant action seeking a rescission of the mortgage insurance termination, reestablishment of the restrictions contained in the regulatory agreement and a preliminary injunction to prevent Hillvale from enforcing rent increases, eviction notices or in any way changing the terms of the tenancy. Named as defendants were Hillvale and Medve-Wald as owners of the property, Rodan Management as manager of the property, Southern Commercial Bank as mortgagee, and HUD. Plaintiffs alleged that HUD approved Hillvale's request to terminate in violation of the Preservation Act and sought relief under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 706(2)(A), (C) and (D) (1988) ("APA").4 Specifically, plaintiffs asked the court to declare that HUD violated the APA and to order HUD to apply the Preservation Act to any attempt by Hillvale to prepay the mortgage, terminate federal mortgage insurance, or in any way terminate the low income affordability restrictions in the regulatory agreement. Plaintiffs also alleged that, regardless of the applicability of the Preservation Act to Hillvale's request, HUD abused its discretion in approving the request in violation of 5 U.S.C. Sec. 706(2)(A) and that, acting in concert, HUD and Hillvale denied plaintiffs due process of law in violation of the fifth amendment to the United States Constitution.