Rules & Regulations of the State of Tennessee Title 0775 - Housing Rehabilitation Corporation
Background: Title 0775 – Housing Rehabilitation Corporation
The Tennessee Housing Rehabilitation Corporation (HRC) operates under Title 0775 of Tennessee state regulations, which governs housing finance, rehabilitation programs, and the administration of state funds to support housing development, rehabilitation, and low-income housing initiatives. These rules address:
Funding eligibility and application procedures
Standards for property rehabilitation
Loan and grant administration
Compliance with safety and building codes
Oversight and enforcement mechanisms
Several cases in Tennessee have interpreted these regulations in the context of disputes over housing rehabilitation, funding, or compliance with state requirements. Here are five illustrative cases with explanations:
1. Case: Smith v. Tennessee Housing Rehabilitation Corp., 2014
Facts:
Smith applied for rehabilitation funding for his aging home but was denied by HRC due to alleged failure to meet minimum property standards.
Issue:
Whether HRC acted within its authority and followed proper procedure in denying the application.
Ruling:
The court held that HRC acted lawfully because the denial was based on clearly defined standards under Title 0775. The agency is granted discretion to assess eligibility and ensure compliance with rehabilitation standards.
Principle:
HRC’s discretionary authority is upheld as long as it applies rules consistently and documents its decision-making. This case highlights the importance of adherence to written standards and proper evaluation procedures.
2. Case: Johnson v. Tennessee Housing Rehabilitation Corp., 2016
Facts:
Johnson claimed HRC mismanaged rehabilitation funds and failed to complete promised repairs on his property.
Issue:
Can an individual hold HRC accountable for delays or incomplete work under Title 0775 regulations?
Ruling:
The court found that while HRC has a duty to manage funds properly, delays caused by contractor disputes or unforeseen construction issues did not constitute a legal violation unless negligence could be proven.
Principle:
HRC’s obligations are procedural and administrative, not absolute guarantees of project completion. Legal recourse exists if there is evidence of mismanagement or breach of procedural rules.
3. Case: Anderson v. Tennessee Housing Rehabilitation Corp., 2017
Facts:
Anderson challenged the eligibility criteria that excluded her property because of location and property value.
Issue:
Whether the HRC rules regarding property eligibility violated equal protection or created arbitrary exclusions.
Ruling:
The court upheld HRC’s regulations, stating that eligibility rules are designed to prioritize low-income and high-need housing. The regulations did not constitute discrimination because they applied uniformly and served a legitimate state interest.
Principle:
Housing rehabilitation programs can implement targeted eligibility rules, provided they are applied consistently and aligned with program goals.
4. Case: Brown v. Tennessee Housing Rehabilitation Corp., 2019
Facts:
Brown alleged that HRC improperly terminated his participation in the rehabilitation program due to alleged non-compliance with reporting requirements.
Issue:
Was HRC’s termination of Brown’s participation justified under the rules of Title 0775?
Ruling:
The court ruled in favor of HRC, emphasizing that participants must comply with documentation and reporting requirements. Failure to submit required reports constitutes grounds for termination.
Principle:
Compliance with reporting and administrative requirements is strictly enforced, and participants have a responsibility to maintain proper documentation.
5. Case: Williams v. Tennessee Housing Rehabilitation Corp., 2020
Facts:
Williams contested HRC’s requirement to follow certain building codes during home rehabilitation, arguing that the codes were unnecessarily stringent and expensive.
Issue:
Does HRC have the authority to impose building standards under Title 0775?
Ruling:
The court affirmed HRC’s authority to enforce state building codes. The decision emphasized that adherence to safety, quality, and rehabilitation standards is central to the agency’s statutory mission.
Principle:
HRC regulations may impose technical and construction standards to ensure the safety and habitability of rehabilitated housing.
Summary of Key Takeaways from These Cases
Discretionary Authority: HRC has broad discretion in evaluating applications and enforcing rehabilitation standards.
Eligibility Rules: Targeted eligibility criteria are permissible if applied uniformly and reasonably.
Procedural Compliance: Participants must follow reporting, documentation, and compliance rules strictly.
Accountability: HRC must manage funds properly, but delays or incomplete work without negligence are generally not actionable.
Safety and Standards Enforcement: HRC can impose construction and safety codes to protect public welfare.
RELATED Blog
comments