C.F.R. » Title 24 » CHAPTER IV—OFFICE OF HOUSING AND OFFICE OF MULTIFAMILY HOUSING ASSISTANCE RESTRUCTURING, DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT › PART 401—MULTIFAMILY HOUSING MORTGAGE AND HOUSING ASSISTANCE RESTRUCTURING PROGRAM (MARK-TO-MARKET) › Subpart A—General Provisions; Eligibility

24 C.F.R. § 401.1

What is the purpose of part 401?

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

This part contains the regulations implementing the authority in the Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 1997 (MAHRA) for the Mark-to-Market Program. Section 511(b) of MAHRA details the purposes, and section 512(2) details the scope, of the Program.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1975–1978 · leading case: Druker v. City of Boston, 410 F. Supp. 1314 (D. Mass. 1976).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Druker v. City of Boston, 410 F. Supp. 1314 (D. Mass. 1976). “24 C.F.R. § 401.1 et seq. 5 . There was conflicting testimony on this, but, in any event, HUD allows a fixed rate, while the Rent Board used the actual rate with a 5% ceiling.”
Dew v. McLendon Gardens Assocs., 394 F. Supp. 1223 (N.D. Ga. 1975). “32738 to become effective October 14, 1974, 24 C.F.R. § 401.1 , et seq. 7. On or about January 17, 1975, the owners gave notice of intent to apply for a rent increase, and on February 17, 1975, they applied for the rent increase which is under question in this proceeding.”
Medlin v. Fickling & Walker Dev. Co., Inc., 420 F. Supp. 811 (N.D. Ga. 1976). “24 C.F.R. §§ 401.1 et seq. (1976). 7 . Any failure of the defendants to comply with Section 212 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, 88 Stat.”
Moorehead v. Harris, 448 F. Supp. 1214 (N.D.N.Y. 1978). “The Court fails to see how substantive due process is violated by the approval of a rent increase without the implementation of the operating subsidy program. Furthermore, any procedural due process rights which the tenants may have were satisfied by substantial compliance with…”
Lane v. Hills, 72 F.R.D. 158 (D.N.J. 1976). “The second has to do with a claim of non-compliance with applicable regulations governing the procedure for processing authorizations to increase rents, under 24 CFR § 401.1 et seq., as amended, 40 Fed.”
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.