Hayes v. Harvey, No. 16-2692

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
Writing for the CourtGREENAWAY, JR., Circuit Judge.
Citation903 F.3d 32
Docket NumberNo. 16-2692
Decision Date31 August 2018
Parties Theodore HAYES; Aqeela Fogle, Appellants v. Philip E. HARVEY

903 F.3d 32

Theodore HAYES; Aqeela Fogle, Appellants
v.
Philip E. HARVEY

No. 16-2692

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Argued on January 18, 2017 before Merits Panel
Argued En Banc on May 16, 2018
Opinion Filed: August 31, 2018


Rachel Garland [Argued], George Gould, Michael Donahue, Community Legal Services, 1424 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19102, Counsel for Appellants

Susanna Randazzo [Argued], Kolber & Randazzo, One South Broad Street, Suite 1610, Philadelphia, PA 19107, Counsel for Appellee

Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General, William M. McSwain, United States Attorney, Michael S. Raab, Gerard J. Sinzdak [Argued], United States Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 201530, Counsel for Amicus Curiae U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Louis S. Rulli, University of Pennsylvania School of Law, 3501 Sansom Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104, Susanna R. Greenberg, University of Pennsylvania School of Law, 3400 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104, Counsel for Amici Curiae Philadelphia Association of Community Development Corporations, Action-House, Inc., Pennsylvania Legal Aid Network, Philadelphia Legal Assistance, and SeniorLAW Center in Support of Appellants

James R. Grow, National Housing Law Project, 703 Market Street, Suite 200, San Francisco, CA 94103, Daniel Urevick-Ackelsberg, Public Interest Law Center, 1709 Benjamin Franklin Parkway, Floor 2, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Counsel for Amici Curiae National Housing Law Project, Housing Justice Center, and Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law, National Alliance of HUD Tenants, National Housing Trust, Legal Aid Society of New York, Action-Housing, Inc., and Philadelphia Housing Authority in Support of Appellants

Jennifer MacNaughton, City of Philadelphia Law Department, 1515 Arch Street, 17th Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19102, Counsel for Amici Curiae City of Philadelphia and Philadelphia Housing Authority in Support of Appellants

Before: SMITH, Chief Judge, MCKEE, AMBRO, CHAGARES, JORDAN, HARDIMAN, GREENAWAY, JR., VANASKIE, SHWARTZ, KRAUSE, RESTREPO, BIBAS, and FISHER* , Circuit Judges.

OPINION

GREENAWAY, JR., Circuit Judge.

The Hayes family receives enhanced voucher rental assistance from the federal government, and a federal statute provides that enhanced voucher holders "may elect to remain" in their housing developments, even after their landlord has opted out of

903 F.3d 36

the federal housing assistance program. 42 U.S.C. § 1437f(t)(1)(B). But the Hayes family's landlord, Appellee Philip Harvey, contends that this statutory right to "elect to remain" does not apply at the end of a lease term. Thus, according to Harvey, he is permitted to evict the Hayes family without cause once their lease has expired. The District Court agreed and granted Harvey's motion for summary judgment. We will reverse, however, because the statute's plain language and history make evident that enhanced voucher holders may not be evicted absent good cause, even at the end of a lease term. We will therefore remand so that the District Court may consider whether Harvey has good cause to evict under the circumstances of this case.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Statutory and Regulatory Background

In 1974, Congress created the Section 8 housing program "[f]or the purpose of aiding low-income families in obtaining a decent place to live." 42 U.S.C. § 1437f(a) ; Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, Pub. L. No. 93-383, § 201(a), 88 Stat. 633, 662–66 (1974) (amending the United States Housing Act of 1937) (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. § 1437f ). The program, which is funded by the Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD") and administered by local public housing agencies ("PHAs"), 24 C.F.R. § 982.1(a)(1), generally provides two different types of rental assistance: "project-based" subsidies and "tenant-based" subsidies. Id. § 982.1(b)(1).

Project-based assistance is tied to specific housing developments or units. 42 U.S.C. § 1437f(f)(6) ; 24 C.F.R. § 982.1(b)(1). Owners of such properties enter into long-term contracts with the applicable PHA, under which the owners agree to rent their properties to eligible low-income families and the PHA agrees to provide rental assistance payments to the owners on behalf of the assisted tenants. See 42 U.S.C. § 1437f(b) ; 24 C.F.R. §§ 983.202, 983.205. The owners then enter into written leases with particular families for individual units. See 24 C.F.R. § 983.256.

Tenant-based assistance, by contrast, is tied to a specific tenant family and travels with the family if it moves. 42 U.S.C. § 1437f(f)(7) ; 24 C.F.R. § 982.1(b). Tenant-based vouchers may be used on rental units anywhere in the United States, so long as the unit is in the jurisdiction of a PHA that administers a voucher program. 24 C.F.R. § 982.1(b)(1). Once the assisted family selects an eligible unit and the applicable PHA approves the tenancy, the PHA enters into a contract with the property owner, under which the PHA agrees to make rental assistance payments to the owner. Id. § 982.1(b)(2). Unlike long-term PHA contracts for project-based assistance, a PHA contract for tenant-based assistance can provide for a term as short as one year, and the contract covers only the single unit and the particular assisted family. See id. §§ 982.1(b)(2), 982.309(a). But as with project-based assistance, in addition to the PHA contract, the property owner also enters into a written lease with the assisted family. Id. § 982.308(b).

Under both project-based and tenant-based assistance, the assisted family contributes a prescribed amount toward the overall rental payment, generally equal to thirty percent of the tenant family's monthly "adjusted income" or ten percent of its monthly gross income, whichever is greater. 42 U.S.C. § 1437f(o)(2) ; see also id. § 1437a(a)(1). The government pays the balance of the rent amount up to a statutorily capped amount known as the "payment standard," which normally cannot

903 F.3d 37

exceed 110 percent of the fair market rental value for the property, as established by HUD. See id. § 1437f(c), (o)(1)–(2).

In the late 1980s, many of the long-term, project-based assistance contracts between property owners and PHAs began to expire. Concerned that property owners would decline to renew the contracts and force low-income tenants out by raising rents to rates that exceeded the statutory payment standard, Congress passed a number of laws intended to protect tenants in the event their landlords converted their subsidized units to normal, market-based housing. Among these measures was a notice requirement enacted as part of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1987. See Pub L. No. 100-242, § 262(a), 101 Stat. 1815, 1890 (1988) (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. § 1437f(c)(8) ). In its present iteration, this measure requires that owners provide tenants and HUD with at least one year's notice before opting out of their project-based assistance contracts. 42 U.S.C. § 1437f(c)(8)(A). Owners "may not evict the tenants or increase the tenants’ rent payment until" the one-year period has elapsed. Id. § 1437f(c)(8)(B).

Roughly a decade later, as project-based contracts continued to expire, Congress enacted additional tenant protections through creation of the "enhanced voucher" program. See Pub L. No. 106-74, 113 Stat. 1047, 1109–15, 1121–24 (1999). Whereas the notice requirement protects project-based tenants before their property owner's long-term contract with the applicable PHA expires, enhanced vouchers come into play after the notice period has elapsed and the property owner has completed the process of opting out of the project-based assistance program. HUD is statutorily required to provide enhanced vouchers to tenants who had previously been receiving project-based assistance, beginning on the date the owner's project-based contract expires and is not renewed, see 42 U.S.C. § 1437f note—a date that the statute refers to as the "eligibility event," id. § 1437f(t)(2).

Enhanced vouchers are generally governed by the ordinary voucher provision, 42 U.S.C. § 1437f(o), except where modified by the enhanced voucher provision, § 1437f(t). See 42 U.S.C. § 1437f(t)(1). As originally passed in 1999, the enhanced voucher provision stated that

during any period that the assisted family continues residing in the same project in which the family was residing on the date of the eligibility event for the project, if the rent for the dwelling unit of the family in such project exceeds the applicable payment standard established pursuant to subsection (o) for the unit, the amount of rental assistance provided on behalf of the family shall be determined using a payment standard that is equal to the rent for the dwelling unit (as such rent may be increased from time-to-time), subject to paragraph 10(A) of subsection (o) ....

Pub L. No. 106-74, § 538(a), 113 Stat. at 1122. Thus, unlike ordinary tenant-based and project-based vouchers, enhanced vouchers were designed to cover the difference between the tenant's statutorily prescribed rent contribution and the rent amount set by the property owner after opting out of the project-based assistance program, id. § 1437f(t)(1)(B)...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 practice notes
  • Travers v. FedEx Corp., CIVIL ACTION NO. 19-6106
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Pennsylvania)
    • July 20, 2020
    ...115 S.Ct. 1061, 131 L.Ed.2d 1 (1995).88 Babb v. Wilkie , ––– U.S. ––––, 140 S. Ct. 1168, 1177, 206 L.Ed.2d 432 (2020).89 Hayes v. Harvey , 903 F.3d 32, 42 (3d Cir. 2018).90 Maine Cmty. Health Options v. U.S. , ––– U.S. ––––, 140 S. Ct. 1308, 1323, 206 L.Ed.2d 764 (2020).91 ECF Doc. No. 36 a......
  • Reilly v. Marin Hous. Auth., S249593
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • August 31, 2020
    ...‘adjusted 10 Cal.5th 607 income’ or ten percent of its monthly gross income, whichever is greater." ( Hayes v. Harvey (3d Cir. 2018) 903 F.3d 32, 36, citing 42 U.S.C. § 1437f(o ).) "Adjusted income" for this purpose is a family's "annual income," minus certain expenses and allowances. ( 24 ......
  • Pennsylvania v. DeJoy, Civil Action No. 20-4096
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Pennsylvania)
    • September 28, 2020
    ...Cir. 2005) (quoting Christensen v. Harris County , 529 U.S. 576, 587, 120 S.Ct. 1655, 146 L.Ed.2d 621 (2000) ); see also Hayes v. Harvey , 903 F.3d 32, 45-46 (3rd Cir. 2018) (en banc) (noting in dicta that HUD guidance documents do not warrant deference under Chevron because they lack the f......
  • Tomasi v. Twp. of Long Beach, Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-7319 (PGS) (LHG)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. District of New Jersey
    • January 31, 2019
    ...entitled to a degree of ‘respect’ under Skidmore v. Swift & Co. , 323 U.S. 134, 65 S.Ct. 161, 89 L.Ed. 124 (1944)." Hayes v. Harvey , 903 F.3d 32, 46 (3d Cir. 2018) ; c.f. , Pereira v. Sessions , ––– U.S. ––––, 138 S.Ct. 2105, 2120, 201 L.Ed.2d 433 (2018) (Kennedy, J., concurring) (cautioni......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
10 cases
  • Travers v. FedEx Corp., CIVIL ACTION NO. 19-6106
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Pennsylvania)
    • July 20, 2020
    ...115 S.Ct. 1061, 131 L.Ed.2d 1 (1995).88 Babb v. Wilkie , ––– U.S. ––––, 140 S. Ct. 1168, 1177, 206 L.Ed.2d 432 (2020).89 Hayes v. Harvey , 903 F.3d 32, 42 (3d Cir. 2018).90 Maine Cmty. Health Options v. U.S. , ––– U.S. ––––, 140 S. Ct. 1308, 1323, 206 L.Ed.2d 764 (2020).91 ECF Doc. No. 36 a......
  • Reilly v. Marin Hous. Auth., S249593
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • August 31, 2020
    ...‘adjusted 10 Cal.5th 607 income’ or ten percent of its monthly gross income, whichever is greater." ( Hayes v. Harvey (3d Cir. 2018) 903 F.3d 32, 36, citing 42 U.S.C. § 1437f(o ).) "Adjusted income" for this purpose is a family's "annual income," minus certain expen......
  • Pennsylvania v. DeJoy, Civil Action No. 20-4096
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Pennsylvania)
    • September 28, 2020
    ...Cir. 2005) (quoting Christensen v. Harris County , 529 U.S. 576, 587, 120 S.Ct. 1655, 146 L.Ed.2d 621 (2000) ); see also Hayes v. Harvey , 903 F.3d 32, 45-46 (3rd Cir. 2018) (en banc) (noting in dicta that HUD guidance documents do not warrant deference under Chevron because they lack the f......
  • Tomasi v. Twp. of Long Beach, Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-7319 (PGS) (LHG)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. District of New Jersey
    • January 31, 2019
    ...to a degree of ‘respect’ under Skidmore v. Swift & Co. , 323 U.S. 134, 65 S.Ct. 161, 89 L.Ed. 124 (1944)." Hayes v. Harvey , 903 F.3d 32, 46 (3d Cir. 2018) ; c.f. , Pereira v. Sessions , ––– U.S. ––––, 138 S.Ct. 2105, 2120, 201 L.Ed.2d 433 (2018) (Kennedy, J., concurring) (cautioni......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT