24 C.F.R. § 880.609

Adjustment of contract rents

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

(a) Automatic annual adjustment of Contract Rents. Upon request from the owner to the contract administrator, contract rents will be adjusted on the anniversary date of the contract in accordance with 24 CFR part 888.

(b) Special additional adjustments. For all projects, special additional adjustments will be granted, to the extent determined necessary by HUD (for 24 CFR part 883 projects, by the Agency and HUD), to reflect increases in the actual and necessary expenses of owning and maintaining the assisted units which have resulted from substantial general increases in real property taxes, assessments, utility rates, and utilities not covered by regulated rates, and which are not adequately compensated for by annual adjustments under paragraph (a) of this section. The owner must submit to the contract administrator required supporting data, financial statements and certifications.

(c) Overall limitation. Any adjustments of contract rents for a unit after Contract execution or cost certification, where applicable, must not result in material differences between the rents charged for assisted units and comparable unassisted units except to the extent that the differences existed with respect to the contract rents set at Contract execution or cost certification, where applicable.

[44 FR 59410, Oct. 15, 1979, as amended at 59 FR 22755, May 3, 1994; 61 FR 13591, Mar. 27, 1996]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 10 cases, 1989–2011 · leading case: Haddon Hous. Assocs., LLC v. United States, 92 Fed. Cl. 8 (Fed. Cl. 2010).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Haddon Hous. Assocs., LLC v. United States, 92 Fed. Cl. 8 (Fed. Cl. 2010). · cites it 5× “” 24 C.F.R. § 880.609 (a) (1980). Adjustments to contract rents were subject to an “overall limitation,” such that “[adjustments in the maximum rents as hereinbefore provided shall not result in material differences between the rents charged for assisted and comparable…”

Cuyahoga Metro. Hous. Auth. v. United States, 65 Fed. Cl. 534 (Fed. Cl. 2005). · cites it 2× “See 24 C.F.R. § 880.609 (c) (1979). To protect the differences which “may have existed with respect to the initial Contract Rents,” HUD developed what is known as the “initial difference,” equal to the difference between the initial Section 8 contract rents and the original…”

Haddon Hous. Assocs., LLC v. United States, 99 Fed. Cl. 311 (Fed. Cl. 2011). · cites it 2× “” 24 C.F.R. § 880.609 (a) (1980). . Neither Haddon Associates nor Housing Authority possesses any legal interest in Grand Suites Management.”

Cuyahoga Metro. Hous. Auth. v. United States, 57 Fed. Cl. 751 (Fed. Cl. 2003). “See 24 C.F.R. § 880.609 (c) (1979). To protect the differences which “existed with respect to the initial Contract Rents,” HUD developed what is known as the “initial difference,” equal to the difference between the initial Section 8 contract rents and the original comparables.”

Rebelwood, Ltd. v. Hinds Cnty., 544 So. 2d 1356 (Miss. 1989). “24 C.F.R. § 880.609 (1988) (emphasis added).”

Melrose Assocs., L.P. v. United States, 43 Fed. Cl. 124 (Fed. Cl. 1999). “Osborne, acted in excess of the delegated, actual authority necessary to bind the government to an agreement that computed rent increases in a manner not prescribed by 24 C.F.R. § 880.609 (a) (specifically, annual adjustment factors or the rents of comparable unassisted housing)…”

Schs Assocs. v. Cuomo, 139 F. Supp. 2d 238 (D.R.I. 2001). · cites it 2× “609 , the regulations at 24 C.F.R. § 880.609 (2000), which contain the same requirements as originally stated in 24 C.”

Charlotte Hous. for the Elderly v. Cuomo, 89 F. Supp. 2d 70 (D.D.C. 2000). “24 C.F.R. §§ 880.609 (a) & 888.200 et seq.”

Myrtle Manor Apts. v. City of Phoenix, 868 P.2d 1048 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 2× “(c)(2)(B) requires that HAP contracts permit the HUD secretary to adjust maximum monthly rents as “necessary to reflect increases in the actual and necessary expenses of owning and maintaining the units which have resulted from substantial general increases in real property…”

Brown Park Estates-Fairfield Dev. Co. v. United States, 34 Fed. Cl. 464 (Fed. Cl. 1995). “See 24 C.F.R. § 880.609 . Plaintiffs contend that defendant failed to properly adjust the rent subsidies under the HAP Contracts.”

— 24 C.F.R. § 880.609(a) — 1 case

Myrtle Manor Apts. v. City of Phoenix, 868 P.2d 1048 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994). “(c)(2)(B) requires that HAP contracts permit the HUD secretary to adjust maximum monthly rents as “necessary to reflect increases in the actual and necessary expenses of owning and maintaining the units which have resulted from substantial general increases in real property…”

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.