(a) Even if the family continues to occupy the unit, the PHA may exercise any rights and remedies against the owner under the HAP contract.
(b)(1) The family is not a party to or third party beneficiary of the HAP contract. Except as provided in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, the family may not exercise any right or remedy against the owner under the HAP contract.
(2) The tenant may exercise any right or remedy against the owner under the lease between the tenant and the owner, including enforcement of the owner's obligations under the tenancy addendum (which is included both in the HAP contract between the PHA and the owner; and in the lease between the tenant and the owner.)
(c) The HAP contract shall not be construed as creating any right of the family or other third party (other than HUD) to enforce any provision of the HAP contract, or to assert any claim against HUD, the PHA or the owner under the HAP contract.
[60 FR 34695, July 3, 1995, as amended at 64 FR 26647, May 14, 1999]
Notes of Decisions
Reyes-Garay v. Integrand Assurance Co., 818 F. Supp. 2d 414 (D.P.R. 2011).
· cites it 3× “162 (a)(3) and 24 C.F.R. § 982.456 (b)(2), 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section 1983”), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.”
Johnson v. Hous. Auth. of Jefferson Par., 442 F.3d 356 (5th Cir. 2006).
“The Housing Authority also notes that HUD regulations expressly deny voucher program participants third party beneficiary rights in the HAP contract between the public housing authority and the landlord, citing 24 C.F.R. § 982.456 . The effect of this limitation, however, is…”
Konarski v. Donovan, 763 F. Supp. 2d 128 (D.D.C. 2011).
“152 , and the rights of Section 8 beneficiaries with respect to the contracts between landlords and the local housing authorities, 24 C.F.R. § 982.456 , they do not explain how these statutes and regulations impose a “clear duty” on the respondents to act.”
Taylor v. Lewis, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1040 (E.D. Mo. 2011).
· cites it 3× “453 (a), and from the Tenancy Addendum between Plaintiff and Defendant, see 24 C.F.R. § 982.456 (b)(2) (establishing that tenants can enforce obligations under the tenancy addendum).”
Dexheimer v. CDS, INC., 17 P.3d 641 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001).
“" 24 C.F.R. § 982.456 (b)(2) (2000) (emphasis added).”
Dexheimer v. CDS, Inc., 104 Wash. App. 464 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001).
“” 24 C.F.R. § 982.456 (b)(2) (2000) (emphasis added).”
Anderson v. Dist. of Columbia Hous. Auth., 923 A.2d 853 (D.C. 2007).
· cites it 3× “For example, pursuant to 24 C.F.R. § 982.456 (b)(2) (1999), Ms. Anderson had the right to seek enforcement of any right or remedy against Mr.”
Anderson v. Dist. of Col. Hous. Auth., 923 A.2d 853 (D.C. 2007).
· cites it 3× “For example, pursuant to 24 C.F.R. § 982.456 (b)(2) (1999), Ms. Anderson had the right to seek enforcement of any right or remedy against Mr.”
Scott Realty Grp. Trust v. Charland (Mass. App. Ct. 2020).
· cites it 2× “" 24 C.F.R. § 982.456 (b)(1). As a result, "the [tenant or] family may not exercise any right or remedy against the owner under the HAP contract," other than "the owner's obligations under the tenancy addendum" and any lease between the landlord and the tenant.”
— 24 C.F.R. § 982.456(b)(2) — 1 case
Reyes-Garay v. Integrand Assurance Co., 818 F. Supp. 2d 414 (D.P.R. 2011).
“162 (a)(3) and 24 C.F.R. § 982.456 (b)(2), 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section 1983”), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.”
— 24 C.F.R. § 982.456(c) — 1 case
Reyes-Garay v. Integrand Assurance Co., 818 F. Supp. 2d 414 (D.P.R. 2011).
“162 (a)(3) and 24 C.F.R. § 982.456 (b)(2), 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section 1983”), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 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.