News

Special Considerations When Renting to Members of the Military and Veterans

While federal and state fair housing law does not ban discrimination based on military or veteran status, many state and local governments do. However, disabled veterans are protected (as is any disabled person) under federal fair housing law. Issues to Consider Relating to Veterans & Members of the Military Know your applicable state and local laws: eight states currently have fair housing protection based on military status, but the specific protections vary from state-to-state. For example, New York prohibits discrimination based on military status, but Massachusetts prohibits discrimination specifically against veterans. In some states, such as Illinois, protection for veterans is tied to the nature of a discharge. The Illinois law prohibits discrimination against veterans with a less than honorable discharge but excludes those with a dishonorable discharge. However, Washington state law protects only veterans with an honorable discharge. Rhode Island protects current service members and veterans with honorable or general discharges. While most states offer no military or veteran protection, some localities do. As example is Texas, where there is no state protection, but San Antonio does provide fair housing protection for veterans. The following states currently have fair housing protection based on military or veteran status:ConnecticutIllinoisMassachusettsNew JerseyNew YorkOhioRhode IslandWashington (California is considering such protection). A high percentage of veterans have disabilities: 29% of recent veterans report a service-connected disability, vs 13% of all veterans. One of the more common disabilities among veterans is Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), TBI is a major focus of the Veterans Administration (VA).PTSD is a common vet-related disability: "Holland v The Related Companies, July 2015," is a California case that dealt specifically with PTSD.Facts of the Case:Resident was an Army combat veteran with PTSD;As the result of noise from ongoing construction, the vet requested a transfer to a unit away from the noise. The vet said the noise triggered nightmares, anxiety, etc., because it reminded him of gunfire, explosions, and screaming, making him feel as if he was in a war zone;The community agreed on the need for the transfer but did not agree on payment of current rent for a more expensive unit. They agreed to move the family to the better unit at current rent but wanted them to move back to their original unit when construction was finished; andThe resident refused, asking for a court order allowing them to stay until the end of the lease (five months).Decision: the court granted the request.Reasoning:The cost of moving the family to the more expensive unit was a reasonable accommodation that would not cause an unreasonable financial burden to the property, and the increased cost of allowing them to stay to the end of the lease was minimal.The need for assistance animals among vets is common: Emotional Support Animals (ESAs) for vets with PTSD are common.There are laws in addition to fair housing laws that protect military and veterans: Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) - this was formerly the "Soldiers and Sailors Civil Relief Act," and it protects active duty military. It coversRental agreements;Security deposits;Prepaid rent;Eviction;Installment contracts;Credit card interest rates;Mortgage interest rates;Mortgage foreclosure;Civil judicial proceedings;Auto leases;Life insurance;Health insurance; andIncome tax payments                                     Under certain circumstances, servicemembers may terminate - Without penalty - leases. Communities may not evict military members or their dependents during active military service without a court order. Of all the protections for the military, the SCRA is the most important. A recent example shows how aggressively courts will enforce the SCRA: In March 2019, a Virginia-based property management company paid $1.5 million for violation of the SCRA. This is the largest settlement under the Act. The facts of the case are:From 2006 - 2017, the company obtained 152 default judgments against 127 servicemembers by failing to disclose their military status to the court or by falsely stating that the tenants were not in the military.The company imposed unlawful charges against servicemembers who tried to terminate leases early in order to comply with military orders. Another important law related to servicemembers is "The Uniformed Services Employment & Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA)." This law ensures that servicemembers are entitled to return to their civilian employment upon completion of military service and was designed to protect members of the National Guard and Reserve who are called to active duty. These servicemembers should be reinstated with the seniority, status, and rate of pay that they would have obtained had they remained continuously employed by their civilian employer. Summary If your community is subject to state or local laws barring discrimination based on military or veteran status, you need to discuss with your local counsel exactly what protections are offered by the specific laws. Also, while the Fair Housing Act bans discrimination against veterans with disabilities, the law does not protect an individual with a disability whose tenancy would constitute a "direct threat" to a property or the health and safety of other residents or staff. However, before taking adverse action against a disabled resident, management should determine whether there are any reasonable accommodations that would eliminate or significantly reduce the threat.

Recent OIG Audits Show Importance of Training in Section 8 Requirements

The HUD Office of Inspector General (OIG) recently conducted two management agent audits that illustrate the importance of Section 8 training for management agents. In both cases, OIG recommended a significant repayment of assistance by the project owners due to management errors by the agents. A review of both audits is instructive for agents who manage Section 8 properties. HUD Audit 2019-CH-1003 This was an audit of Lake View Towers in Chicago, IL. This 500 unit project contains 395 Section 8 units for which HUD made assistance payments. For the period covered by the audit, HUD provided the owner approximately $8.5 million in Section 8 housing assistance payments. The purpose of the audit was to determine whether the management agent correctly calculated and paid housing assistance, obtained and maintained required eligibility documentation, and administered the waiting list in accordance with HUD s and its own requirements. The audit found that the management agent did not always administer the program in accordance with applicable requirements. The primary issue identified by the audit was that housing assistance payments were not always correctly calculated or supported. In conducting the audit, 120 certifications were reviewed to determine whether housing assistance payments were correctly determined for the period November 2016 - October 2018.  Of the 120 files reviewed, 66 had unsupported or incorrectly calculated housing assistance. Auditors also determined that the property staff did not understand program requirements. For example, the staff was unaware that: Annual income is the amount of income anticipated to be received by the household from all sources during the 12-month period following admission or annual recertification, which includes tips and overtime income;All adult tenants with zero income must self-certify that they do not have income;Tenants must provide the most recent four to six consecutive paystubs to support income;EIV income reports must be checked during recertifications for unreported or underreported income; andTax returns used to support income must be complete and final. The audit found that although the project s assistant manager and occupancy specialist were responsible for performing household certifications, they received no training on HUD program requirements until 2017, and HUD found errors for the period after the training occurred. Based on the audit findings, HUD paid nearly $57,000 in ineligible assistance and more than $399,000 in unsupported housing assistance. The audit also found that housing assistance may have been unjustly denied or delayed for eligible applicants on the project s waiting list. OIG auditors recommended that the Chicago Office of Multifamily Housing Programs require the project owner to reimburse HUD for the ineligible housing assistance payments; reimburse appropriate households for any underpaid housing assistance; support or reimburse HUD for the unsupported housing assistance payments; conduct required criminal record background checks; update its waiting lists to include required notations; and implement adequate policies, procedures, and controls to address the issues found by the audit. HUD Audit 2019 - PH - 1003 The second audit involved multiple projects and was an audit of PK Management, LLC, a Birmingham, AL management company. The audit was initiated following media coverage of conditions at Essex Village, a Section 8 community in Richmond, VA. and the fact that there had been a prior audit of the company but HUD. The objective of the audit was to determine whether PK Management assisted eligible tenants and maintained documentation to support the housing assistance payments it received for residents of the sites it managed in the Philadelphia region. Six projects in PA and VA were audited and OIG found that the management company did not always maintain documentation to show that it assisted eligible tenants and supported the housing assistance payments it received for residents. Of the 60 tenant files reviewed (ten per property), OIG found that 23 did not contain required tenant eligibility documentation. The missing tenant eligibility documentation included (1) background checks for drugs and violent criminal activity; (2) Citizenship Declaration forms; (3) authorizations for release of information and Privacy Act notices; (4) copies of Social Security numbers; (5) third-party verifications; and (6) proof of disability {when required for project eligibility}. 27 of the 60 files lacked other types of required documentation, including (1) family composition; (2) proof of proper selection from the waiting list; (3) disclosure of lead-based paint certification to tenants; and (4) unit inspections {move-in/move-out/annual}. The primary reason for these management failures, according to the auditors, was that PK Management did not have adequate controls to ensure that it maintained documentation to show that tenants were eligible for assistance and that housing assistance payments were supported. As a result, the audit could not support $497,762 in housing assistance payments. The audit recommended that HUD require PK Management to provide documentation to support housing assistance payments it received totaling $497,762 or reimburse HUD from non-project funds for any amount that cannot be supported and implement controls to ensure that documentation showing tenant eligibility is in place going forward. Summary These two audits show the importance of training for staff of management companies charged with the management of Section 8 and other HUD-assisted properties. Failure to properly document resident eligibility for program participation can lead to HUD demanding repayment of unsupported subsidy, and as outlined in these two audits, the required repayments can be substantial.

Emancipated Minors and the Determination of Income on Affordable Housing Properties

The determination of income for affordable housing developments (e.g., HUD/Rural Development/ LIHTC) depends on whether a household member is an "adult" or a "dependent," as defined by HUD regulation. The definition of these terms is found in HUD Handbook 4350.3 and is fairly straightforward. A person is considered an adult if he or she is:18 or older and not disabled or a full-time student; orAn "emancipated minor." Property managers often struggle with how to define an "emancipated minor." This article provides guidance on how to determine whether a person under the age of 18 is an emancipated minor. However, this article does not provide legal advice, and since emancipation of minors is a state-law issue, owners and managers should rely on local counsel for legal guidance. What is an "Emancipated Minor?" An emancipated minor is a person under the age of 18 (usually) who is legally deemed an adult under state law. In most states, individuals may not enter into contracts until they reach the age of majority (usually 18). However, there are circumstances under which minors may enter into contracts - even if they are not emancipated. The law is designed to protect children (minors) by preventing adults from entering into contracts with them. This means that a contract with a minor may or may not be binding, depending on the circumstances. In order to legally be bound by an agreement, the individuals who enter into the agreement must possess the capacity to form the proper intent to meet the terms of the agreement. Two aspects of "capacity" are recognized: (1) the mental capacity to form the intent to commit an act; and (2) the maturity, or the roughly objective measure of the ability to form a legal intent. It is maintained that when a child reaches a certain age [normally 18], his or her capacity to form the proper intent matures - thus they have reached the age of "majority." At this point, a person can be held accountable for his or her actions. In some states, the age of majority is 19 (Alabama and Nebraska) and in Mississippi is it 21. Some states permit minors who are living apart from their parents and supporting themselves to be emancipated. This means that the minor may be treated as an adult for legal purposes. The minimum age for majority (emancipation) is sometimes set out in state statute but is frequently determined by common law. In general, contracts with minors are "voidable" at the option of the minor but are binding on the adult. In other words, minors may back out of an agreement with an adult, but not vice versa. This is based on the legal premise that while adults are capable of understanding the requirements of entering into a contract, children are not - or at least may not be. However, even here there are exceptions. E.g., if a transaction provides significant benefits to a minor, the transaction may be binding on the minor. Typical exceptions to a minor s right to void a contract include: Contracts for necessities such as food, lodging, and medical services; andStatutory exceptions including insurance and student loans. These exceptions seem to infer that a minor cannot avoid complying with a residential lease. However, minors often avoid lease responsibilities by claiming that they were runaways when they signed the lease. In these cases, since the child could return home to their families, the housing was not a "necessity," - thus voiding the requirement that the contract be for necessary services. This argument has led to many courts dismissing landlord claims against minors. However, emancipated minors are almost always found legally responsible for contracts they enter into. Emancipation is a state law issue, but emancipated minors always include: Legally married minors;Minors in the military; andCourt emancipated minors. Emancipation Through Marriage In certain states (e.g., Pennsylvania), if a child marries prior to age 18, that child is automatically emancipated - i.e., specific court permission is not required. Emancipation Through the Military This type of emancipation is applicable only for 17-year olds, since this is the minimum age for joining the military. This also requires the permission of a parent or legal guardian. Emancipation Through Court Order This option is not available in all states (e.g., Delaware and Maryland). In states where court ordered emancipation is permitted, it is often restricted to minors age 16 and above. However, it is lower in some states, such as California where minors as young as age 14 may become emancipated (this may well be related to child-actors). Ultimately, entering into leases with non-emancipated minors is strongly discouraged. Landlords may find that it is difficult (if not impossible) to enforce such leases. Also, keep in mind that all income of emancipated minors should be counted - both earned and unearned - as would be the case with any adult.

Affordable Housing Credit Improvement Act Gaining Support

Since its introduction in June 2019, the Affordable Housing Credit Improvement Act has garnered more support and co-sponsorships from Congressional members. If enacted into law, the legislation will increase the annual allocation of low-income housing tax credits by 50 percent and would expand the tax-exempt bond program. If this happens, it will result in the building of more than 450,000 additional affordable housing units over the next ten years and generate $48.5 billion in wages and business income, $19.1 billion in tax revenue, and 510,000 jobs. As of October 1, 2019, the bill has 93 sponsors and co-sponsors in the house (over 21 percent of all House members) and 22 sponsors and co-sponsors in the Senate (22 percent of all Senators). While the remaining legislative year is short, it is possible that this Act could become law this year. If not, based on the growing Congressional support, a 2020 passage will certainly be possible.

Social Security COLA - 2020

The federal government announced on October 10, 2019 that the Social Security Cost of Live Adjustment (COLA) for 2020 will be 1.6%.  This increase will provide an additional $24 per month for the average retiree. This is significantly less than the 2019 increase of 2.8% and will not keep up with the actual cost of living for seniors who depend on SS as their primary source of income. Social Security recipients will receive a notice in the mail in early December showing their new benefit amount. Recipients will see the increase in their January 2020 payment. Owners and managers of properties that are required to determine the income of residents should use the new COLA SS rate when projecting the income of applicants and residents. This also affects persons receiving SSI, VA pensions, Civil Service Pensions and Railroad Retirement.

NCSHA Provides Updated LIHTC Compliance Forms

The National Council for State Housing Agencies (NCSHA) has released updated model compliance forms for housing credit developments. Virtually all Housing Credit agencies (HCAs) require Housing Credit development owners to use specific forms in their compliance reporting. NCSHA, in collaboration with its members, has developed model compliance forms over the years and has recently released updated versions of these forms. NCSHA has updates seven different forms: Owner s Certification of Continuing Program Compliance;Tenant Income Certification;Employment Verification;Certification of Zero Income;Under $5,000 Asset Certification;Student Self-Certification; andStudent Status and Financial Aid Verification NCSHA is encouraging HCAs to adopt these model forms in order to standardize compliance monitoring practices across all states. However, no HCA is required to use the forms and if they choose to do so, may adapt the forms to suit their needs. While the forms have been created for HCAs to use as desired, they may also be used by individual owners/managers of LIHTC properties, if approved by the applicable HCA. All owners and managers of LIHTC properties should check with their HCAs regarding required forms relating to LIHTC compliance.

HUD Publishes Proposed Rule on Implementation of The Housing Opportunity Through Modernization Act of 2016 (HOTMA)

HUD published a proposed rule implementing The Housing Opportunity Through Modernization Act of 2016 (HOTMA) in the federal register on September 17, 2019. HOTMA was enacted on July 29, 2016. This rule would make sweeping changes to current HUD programs, including public housing and project-based Section 8, especially with regard to income calculation and reviews. Other major changes include the continued occupancy of public housing residents with increases in income. The rule is also intended to create consistency between various HUD programs, so there would be changes to the HOME, Housing Trust Fund, and Housing Opportunities for Persons with Aids programs. Comments on the proposed rule are due no later than November 18, 2019. Following is an overview of the major changes that would occur if the final rule is adopted. Income Reexaminations Reviews of family income shall be made upon the request of a family at any time the income or deductions of the family change by an amount that is estimated to result in a decrease of 10 percent or more in annual adjusted income, or of such lower amount as HUD may establish or permit the PHA or owner to establish. Interim recertifications will not be required if the decrease in adjusted income is less than 10 percent, but PHAs or owners will be able to establish policies to conduct interims when income decreases by less than 10 percent.PHAs and owners must conduct an interim reexamination of income at any time the family s adjusted income is estimated to have increased by 10 percent or more. However, PHAs and owners will not be required to conduct an interim for increases in income during the last three months of a certification period. In a major change, increases due to employment income will not be considered when determining whether a household s income has increased, unless the increase in earned income corresponds to previous decreases resulting from the family s request for an interim reexamination. Calculation of Family Income For purposes of move-in (initial occupancy), the initial provision of housing assistance, or for an interim reexamination of family income, the income for the upcoming year must be estimated (this is in line with current rules). In determining annual income for annual recertifications, the proposed rule requires that the PHA or owner use the income of the family as determined by the PHA or owner for the preceding year, taking into account any changes in income as reflected on interim certifications during the year. In cases where an interim recertification was not done because the change in income was less than 10 percent, the income will be adjusted to reflect the change in income. De Minimis Error A PHA or owner will not be out of compliance with the income determination requirements due to de minimis (minor) errors in the determination of income. HUD is proposing to define "de minimis" as any error where the calculation of income varies from the correct income by no more than 5 percent. However, the PHA or owner will still be required to take corrective action to repay a family if the error resulted in the family being overcharged for their rent. Definition of Annual Income The proposed regulation provides a new definition of income. This proposed rule would specify that annual income also includes the imputed return on assets over $50,000, based on the current passbook savings rate if the actual income from assets cannot be computed. It appears that this may change the requirement as it now exists to count the higher of the actual or imputed income to assets. The language in the proposed rule would require that if actual income from assets can be determined, it must be used - even if less than imputed income. The $50,000 figure will be adjusted for inflation. Income sources that were previously included in annual income are generally unchanged. Income Exclusions The proposed rule removes current exclusions for inheritances, capital gains, gifts, and other sporadic income. HUD seems to be taking the position that these amounts should be included in annual income. Based on this change, realized capital gains obtained from the sale of property in a given year would be included as income. The value of unrealized capital gains - meaning the value of any increase in an asset from one year to the next - would be included under the definition of Net Family Assets. Earnings in excess of $480 for full time student dependents age 18 or older and for adoption assistance in excess of $480 per child will still be excluded, but the $480 will be adjusted annually based on the inflation rate. Currently, the earned income of foster adults is counted, but under the proposed regulation, such income will be excluded. Under the proposed rule, educational assistance relating to books and room and board will also be excluded, which is not currently the case. Under current law, only the medical portion of the Aid and Attendance program for veterans is excluded. The proposed rule excludes the full amount of Aid and Attendance. Adjusted Income The $480 dependent deduction would remain in place but would be adjusted annually for inflation, adjusted to the next lowest multiple of $25. The one-time elderly deduction would increase from $400 to $525, adjusted annually for inflation. All other deductions currently permitted would remain. However, the deduction for medical expenses, which is now permitted when such expenses exceed 3% of gross income, would not be permitted until the expenses exceed 10% of gross income. This means that families who receive a health and medical expense deduction may see a significant increase in their adjusted income and rent. If the family can demonstrate a hardship resulting in an inability to pay the rent as a result in the change in the medical deduction, the PHA or owner will be required to recalculate the family s adjusted income. In such case, the deduction would be the amount in excess of 6.5% of the family s annual income instead of 10%. This hardship exemption would expire at the family s next regular income reexamination or at such time as the owner determines that the family can afford the rent based on the regular 10% adjustment, whichever comes first. The childcare deduction remains in place, but the proposed rule allows a hardship exemption for this deduction. Under this rule, a hardship exemption would be provided to allow the deduction for reasonable childcare costs to continue in certain circumstances for a family that no longer has a member that is employed or seeking to further his or her education. The family would be required to demonstrate that their inability to pay the increased rent is due to the loss of the childcare deduction. The family would also have to demonstrate why the childcare expense remains necessary even though no family member is employed, actively seeking employment or furthering his or her education. For example, the family member may have had to temporarily suspend their educational pursuits as the result of injury or illness and due to the injury or illness, they are unable to be the primary full-time caregiver for the child. This exemption would be temporary and would end no later than the family s next regular reexamination. Income Limitation for Existing Public Housing Residents While already in place through prior HUD guidance, the proposed rule would create a new 24 CFR 960-507, which would place an income limitation on a public housing tenancy for families at 120 percent of AMI.  This limit would not apply to PHAs operating fewer than 250 public housing units that have rented to over-income households because there are no income eligible families on the waiting list or applying for public housing assistance. If a family s income has exceeded the 120% limit for two consecutive years, a PHA must terminate the family s tenancy within six months after the expiration of the two year period or charge a monthly rent equal to the greater of (1) the applicable Fair Market Rent (FMR); or (2) the amount of monthly subsidy for the unit including amounts from the operating and capital fund. Limitation on Assets The regulation would limit the amount and type of assets that a family assisted under public housing or Section 8 can possess. Families would be ineligible for public housing or Section 8 assistance if their net family assets exceed $100,000, adjusted annually for inflation.Families could not receive assistance if they have a present ownership interest in, legal right to reside in, and the effective legal authority to sell real property in the jurisdiction in which the property is located that is suitable for occupancy by the family as a residence. This provision excludes any property that is jointly owned by a member of the family and another individual or individuals who would not reside with the family. It would also not apply if the family is receiving HUD assistance while living in the home, is a victim of domestic violence, or is offering the home for sale, as demonstrated by a listing agreement.The proposed rule excludes the value of any accounts approved by the IRS as retirement accounts, including IRAs, employer retirement plans, and retirement plans for self-employed individuals.Any income distributed from any trust will be considered income, except in the case of distributions from non-revocable trusts, made to cover the medical expenses for a minor.The proposed rule would revise the existing exclusion in HUD s regulations for the value of necessary items of personal property, to provide that the exclusion will apply to items of personal property with a total value under $50,000, other than necessary items. Necessary items may include items such as a car used for personal transportation. Authorization for Financial Disclosures Under current regulation, Consent to Release forms are valid for 15-months after they are signed. The proposed regulation will make the forms valid until the earliest of: (1) the rendering of a final adverse decision for an applicant; (2) the cessation of a participant s eligibility for assistance from HUD and the PHA; or (3) the express revocation by the applicant of the authorization, in a written notification to HUD. The proposed regulation will also incorporate the new requirements into the HOPWA, HOME,  and HTF. As noted earlier, comments on this proposed regulation are due by November 18, 2019. The changes outlined in this regulation are extensive and all PHAs and owners of affected properties should carefully review and comment on the proposed regulation. After the comment period, HUD will review the comments and publish a final rule with appropriate changes from the proposed rule. No final rule should be expected prior to early to mid-2020.

Fair Housing Definition of a Dwelling

The Fair Housing Act (FHA) applies to "dwellings." This raises the technical issue of what a dwelling is. The answer is not as simple as one may think. The statute s definition of a dwelling includes any building occupied or intended to be occupied as a residence and any vacant land sold or leased for the construction of such a building. In addition to houses and apartments, the definition also includes mobile home parks, trailer courts, condominiums, cooperatives, and time-sharing properties. A building or land intended for non-residential use is not covered. What about temporary residences such as dormitories, homeless shelters, and extended care facilities? An early and influential decision in this area is United States v. Hughes Memorial Home, 396 F. Supp. 544 (W.D. VA. 1975). This was a private facility in VA that was established in 1922 to provide housing for orphans and other needy "white children of Virginia and North Carolina." Because the home would not accept black children, the Department of Justice (DOJ) brought a fair housing suit. The Home argued that it was not a dwelling, and therefore not subject to the FHA. Once admitted, a child was considered a permanent resident of the Home and the average length of stay was about four years. The children attended area schools during the day. The court held that while the term "residence" is not defined in the statute, the term should be given its ordinary dictionary meaning, which was "a temporary or permanent dwelling place, abode or habitation to which one intends to return as distinguished from the place of temporary sojourn or transient visit. The judge concluded, "the Home is far more than a place of temporary sojourn to the children who live there." Because the children were in fact, "residents" of the Home, the Home was a "dwelling" subject to the FHA. The basic principle established in this case is that in temporary residence cases, one must look at whether the occupants intend to remain in those residences for any substantial period of time. If occupancy is merely transient, as with most motel and hotel rooms, the property may be viewed as something less than a dwelling and would not be subject to the FHA. Seasonal dwellings, where the residents reside for substantial periods and return to them day after day are also considered dwellings for FH purposes (see United States v. Columbus Country Club, 915 F.2nd 877 (3rd Circuit 1990). How long a period of time is required to establish a residence as a "dwelling" under the FHA has not been definitively established, but it does not have to be long. In Lakeside Resort Enterprises, LP v. Board of Supervisors of Palmyra Township, 455 F.3d 154, 159-60 (3rd Cir. 2006, the court held that a proposed drug and alcohol treatment facility was a "dwelling" under the FHA because, its average stay of 14.8 days "satisfies (though barely)" the "place to return" factor. HUD has endorsed the following multi-factor test for determining whether a facility that includes short-term residencies is covered by the FHA: Length of stay;Whether the rental rate for the unit will be calculated a daily, weekly, monthly, or yearly basis; Whether the terms and length of occupancy will be established through a lease or other written agreement;What amenities will be included inside the unit, including kitchen facilities;How the purpose of the property will be marketed to the public;Whether the resident possesses the right to return to the property; andWhether the resident has anywhere else to which to return. The FHA covers nursing homes, retirement communities, college dormitories, boarding houses and residency hotels, housing for seasonal farm workers, and vacation homes, timeshares, and similar recreational properties. Whether a homeless shelter is a residence depends on circumstances, and prisons are "detention facilities," - not "residences." For most owners and managers of multifamily housing, defining a dwelling is simply an intellectual exercise. However, in the LIHTC field especially, many specialized types of housing (e.g., homeless) are being developed. In such cases, a full understanding of whether the particular property is considered a dwelling for purposes of the FHA is required. If an owner is in doubt as to how the definition may apply to their specific circumstances, legal counsel should be sought.