Darlington, Inc. v. Federal Housing Administration
Citation | 142 F. Supp. 341 |
Decision Date | 20 June 1956 |
Docket Number | No. 4741.,4741. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina |
Parties | The DARLINGTON, Inc., Plaintiff, v. FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION, Defendant. |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
J. C. Long, Charleston, S. C., Heman H. Higgins, Jr., Georgetown, S. C., for plaintiff.
Arthur G. Howe, Asst. U. S. Atty., Charleston, S. C., Carl Eardley, Asst. Atty. Gen., Civil Division, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for defendant.
This is an action by way of declaratory judgment instituted by plaintiff (hereinafter called Darlington) against defendant (hereinafter referred to as F. H. A.) seeking a declaration of Darlington's rights to lease certain apartments in a multifamily apartment building owned by it for periods of less than 30 days. The defendant, acting by and through Norman P. Mason, Commissioner of Federal Housing Administration, requests dismissal of the action and affirmative relief by way of an injunction requiring Darlington to cease and desist in such practices. No issue is raised as to the failure to name the Commissioner as an original defendant; the Commissioner having waived this point in his pleadings. Defendant's motion to dismiss under Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., was converted into a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56, thus enabling the Court to consider evidence presented by both parties and dispose of the entire controversy.
Darlington is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of South Carolina with its charter conforming in all respects to the requirements of F. H. A., the insurer of the mortgage placed upon this modern, completely air conditioned, twelve-story multifamily apartment building erected by Darlington in the City of Charleston, South Carolina. Plaintiff urges that the practices engaged in by F. H. A. promoting the construction of these apartment buildings financed under Title VI, § 608 of the National Housing Act,1 as amended, should be considered by the Court in determining the equities involved, but there is no merit to this contention as the evidence discloses that the first application submitted was withdrawn due to the objection of certain F. H. A. officials as to the location of the project. Thereafter, a subsequent application was approved upon the insistence of Darlington's sponsors. That an error of judgment was made in the selection of a suitable location is rather obvious under the circumstances, but this affords no reason to penalize the defendant.
This is not a matter involving so-called windfall profits which became so prevalent under loose and questionable practices in the years following the termination of World War II. Plaintiff's sponsors caused land, valued at $125,000, to become a part of the project. It has been stated that the total cost of the building was $1,550,920.11 which, when added to the land value, makes a total project cost of $1,675,920.11. F. H. A. insured a mortgage to the extent of $1,357,700, thus leaving an investment of $318,220.11 on the part of plaintiff. While it is improbable that this represents a total cash outlay by plaintiff, it is nevertheless conceded that the amount of the mortgage is approximately 90% of the total cost of the building and well within the legitimate financing of "608 projects".
During the latter part of 1949 the "608" application was approved and, on December 7, 1949, a charter was granted to plaintiff by the Secretary of State of South Carolina. As heretofore noted, the charter was in accordance with a form prescribed by F. H. A. and contains, among other features, certain pertinent provisions as follows:
From a casual reading of the foregoing, it is apparent that the charter is not the constitution of an independent corporation and that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Pine Grove Manor, Section No. 1, Inc. v. Director, Division of Taxation, Dept. of Treasury
...86 L.Ed. 315 (1941); to provide housing accommodations designed principally for residential use, The Darlington, Inc., v. Federal Housing Administration, 142 F.Supp. 341 (E.D.S.C.1956), reversed 352 U.S. 977, 77 S.Ct. 381, 1 L.Ed.2d 363 (1957); and to construct housing in great quantities i......
-
Federal Housing Administration v. Darlington
...the insurance, it is entitled to rent to transients. The District Court gave appellee substantially the relief which it demanded. 142 F.Supp. 341. On appeal, we remanded the cause for consideration by a three-judge court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2282, 28 U.S.C.A. § 2282. 352 U.S. 977, 77 S.C......
-
United States v. LeMay, 19978.
...Housing Administration, 171 F.2d 947, 4 Cir., 1948; Darlington v. Federal Housing Administration, E.D. S.C.1955, 134 F.Supp. 337; Id. D.C.1956, 142 F.Supp. 341; Id. 195T, D.C., 154 F. Supp. 411; see also F. H. A. v. Darlington, Inc., 352 U.S. 977, 77 S.Ct. 381, 1 L.Ed.2d 363 (1957) and 358 ......
-
United States v. Park Side Court, Inc.
...world of commerce, endowed it with both the right to sue and be sued as any other private enterprise. Darlington, Inc. v. Federal Housing Administration, 142 F.Supp. 341, (D. C.S.C.1956) redetermined by Statutory Court on remand, 154 F.Supp. 411 (D. C.S.C.1957), reversed on other grounds 35......