(Download) "Cienega Gardens v. United States" by United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit * eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Cienega Gardens v. United States
- Author : United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
- Release Date : January 07, 1998
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 77 KB
Description
Appealed from: United States Court of Federal Claims Judge Wilkes C. Robinson Dissenting opinion filed by Senior Circuit Judge ARCHER. The United States appeals from the judgment of the United States Court of Federal Claims in a case arising out of contracts for the construction, financing, and regulation of low-income housing. Cienega Gardens v. United States, No. 94-1 C (Fed. Cl. June 18, 1997). The court ruled, on summary judgment, that the enactment of the Emergency Low Income Housing Preservation Act of 1987, Pub. L. No. 100-242, 101 Stat. 1877 (1987) (pertinent parts reprinted in 12 U.S.C. § 1715l note (1989) (Preservation of Low Income Housing)) (hereinafter ""ELIHPA""), and the enactment of the Low-Income Housing Preservation and Resident Homeownership Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-625, 104 Stat. 4249 (1990) (codified at 12 U.S.C. § 4101 et seq.) (hereinafter ""LIHPRHA""), breached contracts between the plaintiffs, owners of low-income housing, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (""HUD""). See Cienega Gardens v. United States, 33 Fed. Cl. 196, 202, 210 (1995); Cienega Gardens v. United States, 37 Fed. Cl. 79, 80, 84 (1996). Specifically, the court determined that the enactment of ELIHPA and LIHPRHA breached the contracts by prohibiting the prepayment of the plaintiffs' mortgage loans after twenty years without HUD's approval. Following a trial on damages, the court awarded damages in the total amount of $3,061,107 to plaintiffs/cross-appellants, Sherman Park Apartments, Independence Park Apartments, Pico Plaza Apartments, and St. Andrews Gardens. See Cienega Gardens v. United States, 38 Fed. Cl. 64, 66 (1997). 1 Because we conclude that the requisite privity of contract did not exist between the Owners and HUD with respect to prepayment of the mortgage loans, so as to make HUD liable to the Owners for breach of contract, we vacate and remand, with the instruction that the breach of contract claims be dismissed.
 "Cienega Gardens v. United States" by United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit * eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free){kind=link}