After determining that a respondent has committed a violation as described in subpart B of this part that subjects the respondent to liability under this part, the officials designated in subpart B of this part shall consider the following factors to determine the amount of penalty to seek against a respondent, if any:
(a) The gravity of the offense;
(b) Any history of prior offenses;
(c) The ability to pay the penalty, which ability shall be presumed unless specifically raised as an affirmative defense or mitigating factor by the respondent;
(d) The injury to the public;
(e) Any benefits received by the violator;
(f) The extent of potential benefit to other persons;
(g) Deterrence of future violations;
(h) The degree of the violator's culpability; and
(i) Such other matters as justice may require.
(j) In addition to the above factors, with respect to violations under §§ 30.45, 30.55, 30.60, and 30.68, the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, or his or her designee, or the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing, or his or her designee, shall also consider:
(1) Any injury to tenants; and/or
(2) Any injury to lot owners.
(k) HUD may consider the factors listed in paragraphs (a) through (k) of this section to determine the appropriateness of imposing a penalty under § 30.35(c)(2); however, HUD cannot change the amount of the penalty under § 30.35(c)(2).
[74 FR 2751, Jan. 15, 2009, as amended at 82 FR 24525, May 30, 2017]
Notes of Decisions
Yetiv v. U.S. Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev., 503 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir. 2007).
· cites it 4× “The ALJ found that Yetiv's violations were significant by considering, as the Secretary requires, the so-called "totality of circumstances" factors set forth in 24 C.F.R. § 30.80 (the same factors used to determine the amount of the penalty).”
Grier v. United States Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev., 797 F.3d 1049 (D.C. Cir. 2015).
· cites it 4× “at 11; see 24 C.F.R. § 30.80 (e). After considering that regulatory factor, the ALJ determined that Mantua Gardens, instead of $2,325,000, could reasonably pay a penalty of only $450,000.”
Egae, LLC v. Ushud (9th Cir. 2021).
· cites it 2× “The ALJ properly consulted relevant factors, listed in 24 C.F.R. § 30.80 , to determine that Petitioners’ failure to submit annual financial reports was “material” under 24 C.”
Ola Props. Inc v. HUD (5th Cir. 2009).
· cites it 2× “Finally, Olabimtan argues that the penalty assessed against him is excessive under the factors listed in 24 C.F.R. § 30.80 , particularly his ability to pay.”
Yetiv v. Hud (9th Cir. 2007).
· cites it 2× “The ALJ found that Yetiv’s viola- tions were significant by considering, as the Secretary requires, the so-called “totality of circumstances” factors set forth in 24 C.F.R. § 30.80 (the same factors used to determine the amount of the penalty).”
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.