Medley v. City of Milwaukee, 91-1963
Citation | 969 F.2d 312 |
Decision Date | 17 July 1992 |
Docket Number | No. 91-1963,91-1963 |
Parties | Albert MEDLEY and Anne Medley, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF MILWAUKEE, Housing Authority of the City of Milwaukee, William R. Drew, Ann Marie Steffen Oldenburg, Edward W. Johnson, Rick Fieldbinder, United States of America, Samuel R. Pierce, Jr., and Troy Grigsby, Defendants-Appellees. |
Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit) |
Elizabeth Adelman (argued) and Jeffrey S. Hynes, Adelman, Adelman & Murray, Milwaukee, Wis., for plaintiffs-appellants.
Hazel Mosley (argued), Office of the City Atty. and Stephen A. Ingraham, Asst. U.S. Atty., Office of the U.S. Atty., Milwaukee, Wis., for defendants-appellees.
Before BAUER, Chief Judge, COFFEY and EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judges.
Albert and Anne Medley appeal the district court's entry of summary judgment in favor of the defendants on the Medleys' claim that the Housing Authority of the City of Milwaukee ("HACM") improperly debarred them from participating in HACM's federally-funded Rent Assistance Program ("RAP"). We affirm.
The Medleys are the owners of rental properties in the City of Milwaukee and are desirous of leasing their rental units to participants in HACM's Rent Assistance Program. We have described the Rent Assistance Program as follows:
Simmons v. Drew, 716 F.2d 1160, 1161 (7th Cir.1983). The Housing Authority of the City of Milwaukee is Milwaukee's "PHA."
During 1981 the Medleys began contracting with HACM to rent their rental units to persons participating in the RAP, and during this period HACM and the Medleys executed a separate contract for each unit rented to a family in the program. The terms of the contract specified the "total monthly rent payable to the Owner" as well as the amount of the "housing assistance payment" the "PHA shall pay each month on behalf of the Family." In regard to alterations of the rental amount, the contracts provided:
(Emphasis added). The contract further stated:
"5. MONTHLY PAYMENT TO OWNER.
(a) The Owner shall be paid under this Contract on or about the first day of the month for which payment is due or as otherwise agreed. The Owner agrees that the endorsement on the check:
....
(2) shall constitute certification by the Owner that:
....
(iii) the Owner has not received and will not receive any payments or other consideration, from the Family, the PHA, HUD, or any other public or private source, for the unit beyond that authorized in this Contract and the Lease...."
The HUD Handbook at Section 9(d) states in pertinent part:
(Emphasis original).
In late 1983, the Medleys rented units to Beverly Bush and Brenda Linwood under the Rent Assistance Program. On October 27, 1983, defendant William Ryan Drew, the executive director of HACM, sent the Medleys a letter reading:
(Emphasis original). The Medleys disregarded the letter and continued to require excess payments from Ms. Bush as well as excess payments from Ms. Linwood. Several months later the Medleys instituted eviction proceedings against Ms. Bush and Ms. Linwood in state court for nonpayment of rent, allegedly with the encouragement of HACM staff person, defendant Edward Johnson. At the eviction hearing for Ms. Bush, Anne Medley testified as follows:
"Q Now, directing your attention to the leas[e] that's in front of you, this agreement on parking, was that agreement ever approved by the Rent Assistance Program, by the way?
A No.
Q Pardon me?
A No, because I think Mrs. Bush had stated that she didn't have a car.
Q Your answer is no?
A Okay.
Q So, your agreement with respect to parking was never approved by the Rent Assistance Program?
A Right. I don't think so."
In the eviction proceeding against Ms. Linwood, which immediately followed that of Ms. Bush, the court stated:
(Emphasis added). Three HACM staff members were present to hear Anne Medley's admission and the state judge's finding that the Medleys had violated the terms of their contract with HACM. Under Section 14(a) of the Medleys' contracts with HACM, violation of any provision of the contract constitutes a default. Section 14 provides: "Upon such determination [that a default has occurred], the PHA shall have the right to terminate this Contract, to terminate or reduce assistance payments or to take corrective action to achieve compliance, in its discretion or as HUD directs." As a result of Anne Medley's admission that she violated the contract in that she charged rent above and beyond that authorized by HACM, and the trial judge's finding that the Medleys were "gouging" the renters as well as the City of Milwaukee, HACM decided to bar the Medleys from future participation in the rental program. Although the contract between HACM and HUD does not require HUD's approval of HACM's decision to debar an owner from the Rent Assistance Program, HACM chose to request HUD's acquiescence. On March 27, 1984, William Drew addressed a letter to the federal defendant, Troy Grigsby, describing the Medleys'...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Heder v. City of Two Rivers
...Circuit distinguished between applying § 893.80 to federal civil rights claims versus other federal claims in Medley v. City of Milwaukee, 969 F.2d 312 (7th Cir.1992). The Seventh Circuit there held that § 893.80 was properly applied to the plaintiffs' state law claims. Id. at 316, 320-21. ......
-
Lauer Farms v. Waushara Cty. Bd. of Adjustment
...Figgs, 121 Wis.2d at 54, 357 N.W.2d 548. In this respect, their situation is similar to that of the plaintiffs in Medley v. City of Milwaukee, 969 F.2d 312 (7th Cir.1992), whose service of a complaint on HUD was found not to constitute the presentment of a claim with the City of Milwaukee i......
-
Guzman v. Shewry
...receive MediCal benefits; it does not involve bidding on government contracts.10 As the Seventh Circuit explained in Medley v. City of Milwaukee, 969 F.2d 312 (7th Cir.1992), there is no authority for the proposition that a private party, such as Guzman, has a "liberty interest in ... parti......
-
Guzman v. Shewry
...receive Medi-Cal benefits; it does not involve bidding on government contracts.9 As the Seventh Circuit explained in Medley v. City of Milwaukee, 969 F.2d 312 (7th Cir.1992), there is no authority for the proposition that a private party, such as Guzman, has a "liberty interest in ... parti......