24 C.F.R. § 290.7

Occupancy requirements

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Multifamily housing project that is HUD-owned or for which HUD is mortgagee-in-possession. Occupancy in a multifamily housing project that is HUD-owned or for which HUD is mortgagee-in-possession shall be available on a basis that is comparable to the occupancy requirements that applied to the project immediately before HUD acquired the project or became mortgagee-in-possession, except that preference shall be given to tenants of other HUD-owned multifamily housing projects who are eligible for assistance in accordance with the displacement and relocation provisions at § 290.17.

(b) Evictions. Eviction from a HUD-owned multifamily housing project is governed by 24 CFR part 247, subpart B.

(c) Threat to health and safety. Whenever HUD determines that there is an immediate threat to the health and safety of the tenants, HUD may require the tenants to vacate the premises and shall provide temporary relocation benefits as provided in § 290.17 to tenants required to vacate the premises.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases, 1982–2008 · leading case: Mandalay Shores Coop. Hous. Ass'n, Inc. v. Samuel R. Pierce, Jr., Sec'y of U. S. Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev., 667 F.2d 1195 (5th Cir. 1982).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Mandalay Shores Coop. Hous. Ass'n, Inc. v. Samuel R. Pierce, Jr., Sec'y of U. S. Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev., 667 F.2d 1195 (5th Cir. 1982). ““[W]hen a movant makes out a convincing showing that genuine issues of fact are lacking, we require * * * [in order to deny a motion for summary judgment] that the adversary adequately demonstrate by receivable facts that a real, not formal, controversy exists * * *.”

Linares v. Jackson, 531 F. Supp. 2d 460 (E.D.N.Y 2008). “HUD has guarded against the prospects of homelessness if subsidized premises must be temporarily vacated because “there is an immediate threat to the health and safety of the tenants,” 24 CFR § 290.7 (c); if that be the case, their tenancy is not terminated and HUD must arrange…”

Bronston v. Kemp, 722 F. Supp. 372 (S.D. Ohio 1989). “17(b) is not statutorily mandated, so that HUD was entitled to waive the regulation pursuant to 24 C.F.R. § 290.7 . Section 290.7 provides that: Upon completion of a determination and finding of good cause by the Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner or…”

Cowherd v. United States Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev., 827 F.2d 40 (7th Cir. 1987). · cites it 2× “In this case, however, HUD waived this regulation pursuant to 24 C.F.R. § 290.7 , which provides that “[u]pon completion of a determination and finding of good cause by the Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner or his or her designee, HUD may waive any…”

Frisby v. United States Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev., 755 F.2d 1044 (3rd Cir. 1985). · cites it 5× “Finally, 24 C.F.R. § 290.7 (1983) states that HUD can, under certain conditions, waive any of these provisions in a particular case.”

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.