49 C.F.R. § 24.206

Eviction for cause

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

(a) Eviction for cause must conform to applicable Federal, State, and local law. Any person who occupies the real property and is in lawful occupancy on the date of the initiation of negotiations is presumed to be entitled to relocation payments and other assistance set forth in this part unless the agency determines that:

(1) The person received an eviction notice prior to the initiation of negotiations and as a result of that notice is later evicted; or

(2) The person is evicted after the initiation of negotiations for serious or repeated violation of material terms of the lease or occupancy agreement; and

(3) In either case the eviction was not undertaken for the purpose of evading the obligation to make available the payments and other assistance set forth in this part.

(b) For purposes of determining eligibility for relocation payments, the date of displacement is the date the person moves, or if later, the date a comparable replacement dwelling is made available. This section applies only to persons who would otherwise have been displaced by the project. (See appendix A to this part, section 24.206.)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2004–2025 · leading case: Pitt v. City of Portsmouth, 221 F.R.D. 438 (E.D. Va. 2004).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Pitt v. City of Portsmouth, 221 F.R.D. 438 (E.D. Va. 2004). · cites it 2× “49 C.F.R. § 24.206 . Defendants may rebut that presumption by showing (1) “[t]he person received an eviction notice pri- or to the initiation of negotiations and, as a result of that notice is later evicted or (2) the person is evicted after the initiation of negotiations for…”

Amana Global Co. v. King Cnty. (W.D. Wash. 2023). “18 Plaintiffs also point to 49 C.F.R. § 24.206 , titled “Eviction for cause,” which provides 19 that “[a]ny person who occupies the real property and is not in unlawful occupancy on the date 20 of the initiation of negotiations, is presumed to be entitled to relocation payments…”

Steve A. Baldwin, as Rep. of the Joan A. Baldwin Fam. Trust, Agreement; The Steve A. Baldwin Fam. Trust; The Alton Baldwin Fam., Trust Agreement; & Baldwin Enter. v. Arkansas Dep't Of, Transp., 2025 Ark. App. 114 (Ark. Ct. App. 2025). “Further, to the extent that the Baldwins now rely on 49 C.F.R. § 24.206 (a) as authority for their claim, they made no argument involving that regulation before the DOT panel.”

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.