| Case
Files & Judicial Decisions
HUD's actions in debarring Nail were unjustified
Dec 15, 2003
Download
File
|
HUD, not Owners are Required
to Fund Operations and Maintenance
Filed Dec. 2, 2002
Download
File
|
HUD's Decision to Debar
Nail was Arbitrary and Capricious, and Not In Accordance
with the Law
September 15, 1999 Decided
Download
File
|
|
Have you been financially taken
advantage of by HUD’s practice of requiring the owners
of Section 8 properties to pay for operations and maintenance
from your own private funds? So have we. But we have proven
in Federal Court that this practice is illegal! Let us help
you recoup your losses and stand up for your rights. |
FACTS:
- HUD has attempted to unilaterally change its obligations
to Section 8 Owners
- HUD has sought to shift its financial obligations to
Section 8 property owners.
- HUD’s attempts have been proven to be illegal by
a Federal Court.
- The Administrative Process may sometimes provide adequate
relief.
- In some cases, a property owner will need individual
judicial relief.
- In other cases, individual property owners cannot practically
obtain judicial relief because of the costs, delays and
uncertainties of litigation.
WE CAN HELP!
|
|
Owners may be entitled to compensation if:
-
HUD failed to provide an adequate rent schedule
to operate and maintain a property
-
HUD allowed the owner’s equity to be
taken
-
HUD imposed unlawful financial obligations
on owners
-
Owners have lost property or income
-
Owners have suffered adverse tax consequences
Favorable District and Appellant Court decisions that have
resulted from recent Court actions we have been involved in:
- 2002—J. Stephen Nail and INTERVEST vs. Mel Martinez
and HUD: “HUD has debarred Plaintiffs herein for their
failure to invest private funds to maintain the Eastover
and Metro Manor properties. Therefore, the Court finds that
the decision by HUD to debar Plaintiffs was arbitrary and
capricious, and not in accordance with the law. . .The Debarring
Official’s Determination is set aside. This cause
is hereby dismissed with prejudice. HUD. . .chose an unsound
legal theory on which to proceed.” United States District
Court Judge William H. Barbour
- 1999—Christopher Village, L.P. vs. Nicholas Retsinas
and HUD: “Nothing in the National Housing Act, HUD’s
regulations, the Regulatory Agreement or the HAP Contract
requires Village, as a low income property owner, to absorb
or subsidize operating and maintenance deficiencies. Instead,
the programs are designed to ensure that HUD establishes
rental rates so that property owners receive enough revenue
to cover all of the property’s expenses including
maintenance, repairs, debt service, taxes, and a six percent
return on investment.” United States Fifth Circuit
Court of Appeals
|
We will work for you as a consultant on
a contingency basis, so you will not owe anything until we
collect for you! |
Consultant Agreement
This Contract constitutes an exclusive Agreement between the
CLIENT and INTERVEST Corp. (IV).
Download File
|
|
