C.F.R. » Title 24 » CHAPTER V—OFFICE OF ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT › SUBCHAPTER C—COMMUNITY FACILITIES › PART 578—CONTINUUM OF CARE PROGRAM › Subpart F—Program Requirements

24 C.F.R. § 578.91

Termination of assistance to program participants

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

(a) Termination of assistance. The recipient or subrecipient may terminate assistance to a program participant who violates program requirements or conditions of occupancy. Termination under this section does not bar the recipient or subrecipient from providing further assistance at a later date to the same individual or family.

(b) Due process. In terminating assistance to a program participant, the recipient or subrecipient must provide a formal process that recognizes the rights of individuals receiving assistance under the due process of law. This process, at a minimum, must consist of:

(1) Providing the program participant with a written copy of the program rules and the termination process before the participant begins to receive assistance;

(2) Written notice to the program participant containing a clear statement of the reasons for termination;

(3) A review of the decision, in which the program participant is given the opportunity to present written or oral objections before a person other than the person (or a subordinate of that person) who made or approved the termination decision; and

(4) Prompt written notice of the final decision to the program participant.

(c) Hard-to-house populations. Recipients and subrecipients that are providing permanent supportive housing for hard-to-house populations of homeless persons must exercise judgment and examine all extenuating circumstances in determining when violations are serious enough to warrant termination so that a program participant's assistance is terminated only in the most severe cases.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2024–2026 · leading case: New Sunrise Props. v. Robertson.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
New Sunrise Props. v. Robertson (Ohio Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 3× “ROBERTSON WITH DUE PROCESS IN VIOLATION OF 24 C.F.R. 578.91 AND THE 14TH AMENDMENT OF THE U.”
Demarcus Hazelwood v. The Common Wealth Apts. (Ind. Ct. App. 2024). “The provision stated: (a) Definitions In this section: (1) Covered dwelling 2 Hazelwood also asserts Common Wealth violated federal law by not providing a grievance process to him pursuant to 24 C.F.R. § 578.91 . However, we need not address this issue because we find Common…”
— 24 C.F.R. § 578.91(b) — 1 case
New Sunrise Props. v. Robertson (Ohio Ct. App. 2026). “ROBERTSON WITH DUE PROCESS IN VIOLATION OF 24 C.F.R. 578.91 AND THE 14TH AMENDMENT OF THE U.”
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.