24 C.F.R. § 247.10
Inapplicability to substantial rehabilitation or demolition; right of disposition unimpaired
This subpart shall not apply in any case in which HUD terminates the occupancy of a tenant as a direct result of a determination by HUD to substantially rehabilitate or demolish the project or to dispose of the project to a purchaser who purchases for the purpose of substantial rehabilitation or demolition. Nothing in this subpart should be construed to affect in any way the right of HUD to exercise its full statutory authority and discretion to dispose of property acquired pursuant to the National Housing Act.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2
cases, 2008–2008 · leading case: Linares v. Jackson, 531 F. Supp. 2d 460 (E.D.N.Y. 2008).
Linares v. Jackson, 531 F. Supp. 2d 460 (E.D.N.Y. 2008). “The Court holds that it does; in so holding, the Court declares that a HUD regulation, 24 C.F.R. § 247.10 , exempting it from providing notice of this basis for terminating a tenancy is unconstitutional, and sets the case down for a hearing to determine the minimum due process…”
Linares v. Jackson, 548 F. Supp. 2d 21 (E.D.N.Y. 2008). “MEMORANDUM AND ORDER BLOCK, Senior District Judge: On January 3, 2008, this Court declared 24 C.F.R. § 247.10 facially unconstitutional because the regulation fails to afford tenants in HUD-owned subsidized housing due process.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.