B-148044, NOV 28, 1972, 52 COMP GEN 300

B-148044: Nov 28, 1972

Additional Materials:

Contact:

Julie Matta
(202) 512-4023
MattaJ@gao.gov

 

Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800
youngc1@gao.gov

IN PRESCRIBING RELOCATION BENEFITS FOR PERSONS DISPLACED WHEN THE GOVERNMENT ACQUIRES REAL PROPERTY PROVIDES THAT THE DATE OF MOVING FROM THE PROPERTY IS CONTROLLING REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE DATE OF ACQUISITION WAS BEFORE OR AFTER JANUARY 2. PRIORITY LESSEES - FORMER LAND OWNERS AND TENANTS WHO REMAINED ON ACQUIRED FEDERAL PROPERTY ON A PRIORITY BASIS AS LESSEES - ARE ENTITLED TO THE BENEFITS OF THE ACT. THE DISPLACEMENTS WILL BE THOSE OF TENANTS RATHER THAN HOMEOWNERS AND. THOSE LESSEES WHO SOLD THEIR HOMES BEFORE ENACTMENT OF PUBLIC LAW 91-646 ARE NOT ENTITLED TO THE EXTRA BENEFITS AFFORDED HOMEOWNERS UNDER THE ACT. THE MATTERS SUBMITTED FOR DECISION CONCERN SITUATIONS WHERE REAL PROPERTY WAS ACQUIRED FOR PUBLIC USE PRIOR TO JANUARY 2.

B-148044, NOV 28, 1972, 52 COMP GEN 300

REAL PROPERTY - ACQUISITION - RELOCATION COSTS - EFFECTIVE DATE OF ENTITLEMENT THE UNIFORM RELOCATION ASSISTANCE AND REAL PROPERTY ACQUISITION POLICIES ACT OF 1970, PUBLIC LAW 91-646, APPROVED JANUARY 2, 1971, IN PRESCRIBING RELOCATION BENEFITS FOR PERSONS DISPLACED WHEN THE GOVERNMENT ACQUIRES REAL PROPERTY PROVIDES THAT THE DATE OF MOVING FROM THE PROPERTY IS CONTROLLING REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE DATE OF ACQUISITION WAS BEFORE OR AFTER JANUARY 2, 1971, THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE ACT AND, THEREFORE, PRIORITY LESSEES - FORMER LAND OWNERS AND TENANTS WHO REMAINED ON ACQUIRED FEDERAL PROPERTY ON A PRIORITY BASIS AS LESSEES - ARE ENTITLED TO THE BENEFITS OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, WHEN THE PRIORITY LESSEES PHYSICALLY VACATE THE PROPERTIES, THE DISPLACEMENTS WILL BE THOSE OF TENANTS RATHER THAN HOMEOWNERS AND, THEREFORE, THOSE LESSEES WHO SOLD THEIR HOMES BEFORE ENACTMENT OF PUBLIC LAW 91-646 ARE NOT ENTITLED TO THE EXTRA BENEFITS AFFORDED HOMEOWNERS UNDER THE ACT.

TO THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY, NOVEMBER 28, 1972:

BY LETTER DATED SEPTEMBER 15, 1972, MR. PAUL W. JOHNSON, THE ACTING DEPUTY FOR INSTALLATIONS AND HOUSING, REQUESTED OUR DECISION WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPRIETY OF THE PAYMENT OF RELOCATION BENEFITS UNDER THE UNIFORM RELOCATION ASSISTANCE AND REAL PROPERTY ACQUISITION POLICIES ACT OF 1970, PUBLIC LAW 91-646, 84 STAT. 1894, APPROVED JANUARY 2, 1971, 42 U.S.C. 4601, AND THE RESETTLEMENT ACT, 10 U.S.C. 2680(1964 ED.). THE MATTERS SUBMITTED FOR DECISION CONCERN SITUATIONS WHERE REAL PROPERTY WAS ACQUIRED FOR PUBLIC USE PRIOR TO JANUARY 2, 1971, THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF PUBLIC LAW 91-646, BUT THE FORMER OWNERS OR TENANTS DID NOT VACATE THE PROPERTY UNTIL ON OR AFTER THAT DATE. THAT PART OF THE RESETTLEMENT ACT CITED ABOVE WAS ONE OF THE PROVISIONS REPEALED BY PUBLIC LAW 91-646.

UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF 10 U.S.C. 2667 WHERE PROPERTY IS NOT NEEDED IMMEDIATELY FOR PROJECT REQUIREMENTS, THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS HAS LONG HAD A POLICY WHICH PERMITS FORMER LAND OWNERS AND TENANTS TO REMAIN ON ACQUIRED FEDERAL PROPERTY ON A PRIORITY BASIS AS LESSEES. AS A RESULT OF THIS POLICY, AT THE TIME OF THE ENACTMENT OF PUBLIC LAW 91-646 THERE WERE NUMEROUS FORMER OWNERS AND TENANTS WHO HAD NOT PHYSICALLY VACATED THE PROPERTIES FOLLOWING ACQUISITION BY THE GOVERNMENT. IN SOME CASES THESE LESSEES HAVE OCCUPIED THE PROPERTY FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS AFTER ACQUISITION. IN IMPLEMENTING PUBLIC LAW 91-646, THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS HAD TAKEN THE POSITION THAT PRIORITY LESSEES WHO VACATE PROJECT PROPERTY ON OR AFTER JANUARY 2, 1971, REGARDLESS OF THE DATE OF ACQUISITION, ARE MOVING AS A RESULT OF THE ACQUISITION OF SUCH REAL PROPERTY AND WERE THEREFORE "DISPLACED PERSONS" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SUBSECTION 101(6) OF PUBLIC LAW 91-646, 42 U.S.C. 4601(6). THAT SUBSECTION READS IN PERTINENT PART AS FOLLOWS:

THE TERM "DISPLACED PERSON" MEANS ANY PERSON WHO, ON OR AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ACT, MOVES FROM REAL PROPERTY, OR MOVES HIS PERSONAL PROPERTY FROM REAL PROPERTY, AS A RESULT OF THE ACQUISITION OF SUCH REAL PROPERTY, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, OR AS THE RESULT OF THE WRITTEN ORDER OF THE ACQUIRING AGENCY TO VACATE REAL PROPERTY, FOR A PROGRAM OR PROJECT UNDERTAKEN BY A FEDERAL AGENCY, OR WITH FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE; ***.

RECENTLY A QUESTION HAS BEEN RAISED WITH RESPECT TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS' INTERPRETATION OF PUBLIC LAW 91-646. SPECIFICALLY, IT HAS BEEN SUGGESTED THAT A FORMER OWNER OR TENANT HOLDING A PRIORITY LEASE MAY NOT BE VACATING AS A RESULT OF ACQUISITION WITHIN THE MEANING OF PUBLIC LAW 91 -646 WHEN HE MOVES FROM LEASED PREMISES ACQUIRED PRIOR TO JANUARY 2, 1971, AND IS, THEREFORE, NOT ENTITLED TO A RELOCATION PAYMENT. IT WAS SUGGESTED THAT THIS POSITION IS SUPPORTED BY THE RECENT COURT DECISION, TALIAFERRO V. STAFSETH, 455 FED.2D. 207(1972). THE TALIAFERRO CASE INVOLVES SIMILAR FACTS UNDER THE FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY ACT OF 1968 AND IN THAT CASE THE COURT UPHELD A LOWER COURT VERDICT THAT UNDER THE FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY ACT A DISPLACED FORMER OWNER OF REAL ESTATE WHOSE TITLE DIVESTED BEFORE ENACTMENT OF THE ACT BUT WHO CONTINUED TO OCCUPY SUBSEQUENT THERETO WAS ENTITLED TO THE RELOCATION PAYMENTS APPLICABLE TO DISPLACED PERSONS BUT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO PAYMENTS APPLICABLE TO DISPLACED OWNERS. IN REACHING THIS DECISION THE COURT STATED THAT ACTS OF CONGRESS ARE GENERALLY TO BE APPLIED UNIFORMLY FROM THE DATE OF EFFECTIVENESS ONWARD AND THAT IT IS ENCUMBENT ON THE PERSON WHO ARGUES FOR RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION TO SHOW THAT CONGRESS INTENDED FOR AN ACT TO BE APPLIED IN THAT FASHION. THE COURT WENT ON TO STATE THAT THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE FEDERAL AID HIGHWAY ACT DEMONSTRATES THAT THE CONGRESS INTENDED FOR THE ACT TO TAKE EFFECT ON THE DATE OF ITS ENACTMENT EXCEPT FOR CERTAIN PROVISIONS WHICH WERE NOT APPLICABLE TO ALL STATES UNTIL JULY 1, 1970.

THE SEPTEMBER 15 LETTER NOTES THAT WHILE HOUSE REPT. NO. 91-1656 IN COMMENTING ON THE DEFINITION OF "DISPLACED PERSONS" STATES THAT IT IS IMMATERIAL WHETHER THE REAL PROPERTY IS ACQUIRED BEFORE OR AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE ACT, SECTION 219 OF THE ACT, 84 STAT. 1903, INDICATES THAT THE CONGRESS FELT IT NECESSARY TO MAKE SPECIAL PROVISION FOR THE ACT'S APPLICATION TO ONE GROUP OF PERSONS RESIDING ON A PARTICULAR PROPERTY WHICH HAD BEEN ACQUIRED PRIOR TO SUCH EFFECTIVE DATE.

IN VIEW OF WHAT IS PRESENTED ABOVE OUR DECISION WAS REQUESTED ON THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:

1. WHETHER PUBLIC LAW 91-646 APPLIES ONLY TO ACQUISITIONS MADE AFTER THE 2 JANUARY 1971 EFFECTIVE DATE, OR WHETHER THE DATE OF MOVING FROM THE PROPERTY IS CONTROLLING REGARDLESS OF THE DATE OF ACQUISITION;

2. WHETHER, IF IT SHOULD BE DETERMINED THAT PUBLIC LAW 91-646 DOES NOT APPLY TO ACQUISITIONS MADE PRIOR TO 2 JANUARY 1971, FORMER OWNERS OR TENANTS HOLDING PRIORITY LEASES OF SUCH PROPERTY AFTER 2 JANUARY 1971 WOULD BE ENTITLED TO RESETTLEMENT BENEFITS UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTION 2680, AT THE TIME THEIR LEASE IS TERMINATED. IF NOT, NEITHER LAW WOULD BE APPLICABLE TO THIS CLASS OF INDIVIDUALS, WHICH WOULD APPEAR TO BE A RESULT NOT INTENDED BY CONGRESS; AND,

3. WHETHER, IF IT SHOULD BE DETERMINED THAT PRIORITY LEASES WHOSE LAND WAS ACQUIRED PRIOR TO 2 JANUARY 1971 ARE ENTITLED TO BENEFITS UNDER PUBLIC LAW 91-646 AT THE TIME THEIR LEASES ARE TERMINATED, FORMER OWNERS ARE ENTITLED TO BENEFITS AS SUCH RATHER THAN AS TENANTS.

THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF PUBLIC LAW 91-646 DISCLOSES THAT SECTION 233 OF THE SENATE-PASSED VERSION OF S. 1, 91ST CONGRESS, THE DERIVATIVE SOURCE OF PUBLIC LAW 91-646, PROVIDED IN PERTINENT PART AS FOLLOWS:

NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER PROVISION OF THIS TITLE, A PERSON -

(1) WHO MOVES OR DISCONTINUES HIS BUSINESS, MOVES OTHER PERSONAL PROPERTY, OR MOVES FROM HIS DWELLING ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 1969, AND BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE PRESCRIBED IN SECTION 253(A), AS THE RESULT OF THE CONTEMPLATED DEMOLITION OF STRUCTURES OR THE CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS ON REAL PROPERTY ACQUIRED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, BY A FEDERAL AGENCY; AND

(2) WHO HAS LIVED ON, OR CONDUCTED A BUSINESS ON SUCH REAL PROPERTY FOR AT LEAST ONE YEAR PRIOR TO THE DATE OF ENACTMENT OF THIS ACT;

MAY BE CONSIDERED A DISPLACED PERSON ***.

SEE S. REPT. NO. 91-488, 15, IN EXPLANATION THEREOF. THIS SENATE LANGUAGE WAS APPARENTLY PROMPTED, AT LEAST IN PART, BY THE TESTIMONY OF CONGRESSMAN EDWARD I. KOCH TO THE EFFECT THAT ALLOWING FOR THE TIME OF PROPERTY ACQUISITION TO BE PIVOTAL WOULD WORK UNFAIRLY ON CERTAIN OF HIS CONSTITUENTS IN THE MURRAY HILL DISTRICT OF NEW YORK CITY WHO WERE STILL RESIDING ON PROPERTY THAT WAS PURCHASED BY THE POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT IN JUNE OF 1962. THE CONGRESSMAN SUGGESTED THAT THE RESIDENTS OF MURRAY HILL WERE PROBABLY NOT UNIQUE IN THAT HE FELT SURE THAT THERE WERE OTHER SITES ACROSS THE COUNTRY WHICH HAD BEEN ACQUIRED BUT STILL HAD FORMER RESIDENTS LIVING ON THEM. SEE HEARINGS BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS, UNITED STATES SENATE, ON S. 1, 91ST CONGRESS, 164-169 AND HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, ON S. 1, 91ST CONGRESS AND RELATED BILLS, 65-69.

DURING CONSIDERATION OF S. 1 BY THE HOUSE COMMITTEE, REPRESENTATIVES OF THE BUREAU OF THE BUDGET RECOMMENDED DELETION OF SECTION 233 OF THE SENATE -PASSED BILL. THEY ARGUED THAT THIS SECTION WOULD OPEN THE DOOR TO BROADER AND INCREASING DEMANDS FOR RETROACTIVE BENEFITS FOR MANY OTHER SPECIAL GROUPS AND PROGRAMS. SEE HOUSE HEARINGS, SUPRA, 572, 579.

DURING CONSIDERATION OF S. 1 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SECTION 233 WAS DELETED AND THE CURRENT SECTION 219 WAS ADDED, APPARENTLY TO TAKE CARE OF THE SPECIFIC MURRAY HILL SITUATION DESCRIBED BY CONGRESSMAN KOCH. SECTION 219 READS IN PERTINENT PART AS FOLLOWS:

NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER PROVISION OF THIS TITLE, A PERSON -

(1) WHO MOVES OR DISCONTINUES HIS BUSINESS, MOVES OTHER PERSONAL PROPERTY, OR MOVES FROM HIS DWELLING ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 1969, AND BEFORE THE 90TH DAY AFTER THE DATE OF ENACTMENT OF THIS ACT AS THE RESULT OF THE CONTEMPLATED DEMOLITION OF STRUCTURES OR THE CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS ON REAL PROPERTY ACQUIRED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, BY A FEDERAL AGENCY WITHIN THE AREA IN NEW YORK, NEW YORK, BOUNDED BY LEXINGTON AND THIRD AVENUES AND 31ST AND 32D STREETS; AND

(2) WHO HAS LIVED ON, OR CONDUCTED A BUSINESS ON, SUCH REAL PROPERTY FOR AT LEAST ONE YEAR PRIOR TO THE DATE OF ENACTMENT OF THIS ACT;

MAY BE CONSIDERED A DISPLACED PERSON ***.

IN EXPLANATION OF SECTION 219 THE HOUSE COMMITTEE REPORT STATES THAT IT WAS TO COVER A SPECIFIC SITUATION RESULTING FROM THE ACQUISITION AND LONG- HOLDING BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY IN NEW YORK CITY AND WAS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS A PRECEDENT OF ANY NATURE. SEE H. REPT. NO. 91-1656, 21.

IN REVIEWING THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF SECTION 219, PARTICULARLY THE OPPOSITION OF THE BUREAU OF THE BUDGET TO THE SENATE LANGUAGE, WE FEEL THAT THE STATEMENT IN THE HOUSE REPORT WAS ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF PRECLUDING RETROACTIVE PAYMENTS TO OTHERS WHO IN FACT MOVED BEFORE THE ENACTMENT OF PUBLIC LAW 91-646. THEREFORE WE VIEW SECTION 219 AS BASICALLY A DESIGN TO PROVIDE BENEFITS TO AN IDENTIFIED GROUP WHO HAD MOVED PRIOR TO ENACTMENT OF THE ACT AND SHOULD NOT BE DETERMINATIVE OF THE FIRST QUESTION.

WITH FURTHER REGARD TO THE FIRST QUESTION, IN ADDITION TO THE STATEMENT IN H. REPT. NO. 91-1656, 4, THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEFINING A DISPLACED PERSON IT IS IMMATERIAL WHETHER THE REAL PROPERTY WAS ACQUIRED BEFORE OR AFTER THE DATE OF THE ACT, THE ACT ITSELF CONTAINS A PROVISION WHICH INDICATES THAT THE DATE THE MOVE TAKES PLACE RATHER THAN THE DATE OF ACQUISITION SHOULD TRIGGER THE APPLICATION OF THE ACT. SPECIFICALLY, SECTION 211(C) 42 U.S.C. 4631(C), READS IN PERTINENT PART AS FOLLOWS:

ANY GRANT TO, OR CONTRACT OR AGREEMENT WITH, A STATE AGENCY EXECUTED BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS TITLE, UNDER WHICH FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE IS AVAILABLE TO PAY ALL OR PART OF THE COST OF ANY PROGRAM OR PROJECT WHICH RESULT IN THE DISPLACEMENT OF ANY PERSON ON OR AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ACT, SHALL BE AMENDED TO INCLUDE THE COST OF PROVIDING PAYMENTS AND SERVICES UNDER SECTIONS 210 AND 305.***.

IN CONSIDERING THIS LANGUAGE, OUR OFFICE IN 51 COMP. GEN. 267, 271(1971) RULED:

THE LANGUAGE OF SECTION 211(C), IN REQUIRING THE AMENDMENT OF PRIOR CONTRACTS, EVIDENCES AN INTENT TO INSURE THAT ALL PERSONS UNDER PREEXISTING GRANTS OR CONTRACTS WHO WOULD BE DISPLACED AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE ACT WOULD RECEIVE THE RELOCATION BENEFITS PROVIDED BY THE ACT. THIS INTENT IS IN HARMONY WITH THE DECLARED PURPOSE OF THE ACT TO ESTABLISH A UNIFORM POLICY FOR THE FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT OF PERSONS DISPLACED AND WITH THE DEFINITION OF "DISPLACED PERSON" IN SECTION 101(6) AS MEANING "ANY PERSON WHO ON OR AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ACT MOVES FROM REAL PROPERTY, OR MOVES HIS PERSONAL PROPERTY FROM REAL PROPERTY, AS THE RESULT OF THE ACQUISITION OF SUCH REAL PROPERTY ***" FOR ANY FEDERAL OR FEDERALLY ASSISTED PROGRAM OR PROJECT.

IN ADDITION, SECTION 202(A), 42 U.S.C. 4622, IN PROVIDING FOR MOVING AND RELATED EXPENSES OBVIOUSLY CONTEMPLATES THAT THE DATE OF MOVING RATHER THAN THE DATE OF ACQUISITION CONTROLS WHEN IT PROVIDES FOR BENEFITS "WHENEVER THE ACQUISITION OF REAL PROPERTY FOR A PROGRAM OR PROJECT UNDERTAKEN BY A FEDERAL AGENCY IN ANY STATE WILL RESULT IN THE DISPLACEMENT OF ANY PERSON ON OR AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ACT

ACCORDINGLY, IN ANSWER TO THE FIRST QUESTION, THE DATE OF MOVING RATHER THAN THE DATE OF ACQUISITION IS DETERMINATIVE IN THE MATTER OF WHETHER BENEFITS ARE AVAILABLE UNDER PUBLIC LAW 91-646.

THIS RESPONSE PRECLUDES THE NEED TO CONSIDER THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE SECOND QUESTION. SEE, HOWEVER, 51 COMP. GEN. 267 FOR DISCUSSION OF OUR VIEWS OF THE SAVINGS PROVISION OF SECTION 220(B), 42 U.S.C. 4621 NOTE, AS TO EXISTING RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES UNDER PRIOR ACTS FOR USE IN OTHER CONSIDERATIONS THAT MAY ARISE IN THE APPLICATION OF PUBLIC LAW 91-646.

HAVING DECIDED THAT THE DATE OF MOVING RATHER THAN THE DATE OF ACQUISITION CONTROLS AND THAT THEREFORE THE PRIORITY LESSEES OF THE CORPS ARE ENTITLED TO BENEFITS UNDER PUBLIC LAW 91-646, THERE REMAINS FOR DECISION THE QUESTION OF THE NATURE OF ENTITLEMENT DUE. RESTATED, THE THIRD QUESTION PRESENTED IS WHETHER PRIORITY LESSEES OF THE CORPS WHO WERE OWNERS BEFORE THE ENACTMENT OF PUBLIC LAW 91-646 BUT WHO ARE NOT NOW OWNERS ARE ENTITLED TO THE EXTRA BENEFITS AFFORDED HOMEOWNERS BY SECTION 203 OF PUBLIC LAW 91-646.

THE BENEFITS AFFORDED BY SECTION 203, 42 U.S.C. 4623, BUILD IN PART ON THE SPECIFIC SECTION OF THE HIGHWAY ACT THAT WAS CONSIDERED IN THE TALIAFERRO CASE (SEE H. REPT. NO. 91-1656, 8), AND - AS IN THAT CASE - THE PERSONS BEING CONSIDERED FOR HOMEOWNER ENTITLEMENT WERE NOT IN FACT HOMEOWNERS WHEN THE LAW GRANTING THESE ENTITLEMENTS TO HOMEOWNERS WAS PASSED.

IN APPLYING THE RULE OF THE TALIAFERRO CASE WE SOUGHT WITHOUT SUCCESS TO FIND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY THAT WOULD EVIDENCE AN INTENT THAT OWNER BENEFITS ARE AVAILABLE TO THOSE FORMER OWNERS. IN THIS REGARD, THE STATEMENT IN H. REPT. NO. 91-646, PAGE 4, TO THE EFFECT THAT IT IS IMMATERIAL WHETHER THE REAL PROPERTY WAS ACQUIRED BEFORE OR AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE ACT, IN ITS CONTEXT, SIMPLY STANDS FOR THE PROPOSITION OF APPROPRIATE ENTITLEMENT TO PERSONS DISPLACED FROM PROPERTY ACQUIRED FOR A FEDERALLY ASSISTED PROGRAM OR PROJECT AND DOES NOT ADDRESS THE VITAL ISSUE OF WHETHER THEIR ENTITLEMENT SHOULD BE AS FORMER OWNERS AS OPPOSED TO TENANTS. WE THEREFORE DO NOT FEEL THAT THIS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY MEETS THE TEST OF THE TALIAFERRO CASE, AND, HENCE, IS NOT DETERMINATIVE OF THE ISSUE. MOREOVER, WHILE THE RETROACTIVE ASPECT OF SECTION 219 CONCERNS PERSONS WHO HAD ACTUALLY MOVED BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE ACT AND THUS DOES NOT CONCERN PERSONS OF THE CLASS HERE CONSIDERED, IT REMAINS THAT IN ENACTING SECTION 219 CONGRESS SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED SOME RETROACTIVE ENTITLEMENTS IN A LIMITED SITUATION TO THE EXCLUSION OF ANY OTHER RETROACTIVE ENTITLEMENTS.

ACCORDINGLY, WHEN THESE PRIORITY LESSEES PHYSICALLY VACATE THE PROPERTIES, THE DISPLACEMENTS WILL - UNDER THE LAW - BE THOSE OF TENANTS RATHER THAN HOMEOWNERS, AND CONSEQUENTLY, IN ANSWER TO THE THIRD QUESTION, THESE PRIORITY LESSEES WHO SOLD THEIR HOMES BEFORE ENACTMENT OF PUBLIC LAW 91-646 ARE NOT ENTITLED TO THE EXTRA BENEFITS AFFORDED HOMEOWNERS UNDER THAT LAW.

IN VIEW OF THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET'S RESPONSIBILITIES IN THE ISSUANCE OF GUIDELINES AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF PUBLIC LAW 91-646, A COPY OF THIS DECISION IS BEING FURNISHED TO THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET.

May 22, 2018

May 21, 2018

May 18, 2018

May 17, 2018

May 16, 2018

May 11, 2018

May 10, 2018

Looking for more? Browse all our products here