News

Resident Protections in a Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Property -- "Good Cause" Termination

Every Section 42 Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) property must have a recorded Extended Use Agreement (EUA). One of the requirements of an EUA is that it prohibit eviction or termination of occupancy by a low-income resident without "good cause." The requirement for an EUA went into effect for LIHTC properties with allocations of credit beginning in 1990 and the good cause protections were included in the original law requiring EUAs. IRS Revenue Ruling 2004-82 (July 29, 2004) made clear that all EUAs for LIHTC projects must include a prohibition against evicting or terminating tenancy of a low-income resident for other than good cause. This requirement must remain in place throughout the entire term of the EUA, which will be a minimum of 30 years. What is "Good Cause?" The general definition of "good cause" is "serious or repeated violations of the material terms of the lease." The owner of a LIHTC project must be able to demonstrate - if challenged in state court - that good cause existed to support the eviction or termination of a low-income resident. For purposes of 42(h)(6)(E)(ii)(I), good cause is determined by the state or local law applicable to the location in which the project is located. The IRS will never take a position relative to what constitutes good cause in any specific situation. This is purely a state and local law issue. Examples of Good Cause Examples of good cause based on most state and local laws governing landlord/tenant relationships include: Nonpayment of rent;Material violations of a lease or rental agreement;Destruction or damage of the property;Interference with other tenants or creating a nuisance; andUsing the property for an unlawful purpose. In the context of a properly structured lease for a LIHTC property, lease violations could include: Refusal to follow the rules of the Section 42 program, including recertification, permitting management to obtain utility records, etc.;Being deemed ineligible under the rules of the Section 42 program (e.g., student status); andProvision of incorrect information relating to eligibility. What about states that allow Landlords to non-renew leases without cause? Many states permit a landlord to non-renew a lease at the end of a lease term without cause - i.e., no reason is needed. In such cases, if a landlord refuses to enter into a new lease, it is not considered, per se, eviction without good cause. However, in these cases, owners must be prepared to demonstrate if challenged in state court that the non-renewal of a lease is not a "termination of tenancy" for other than good cause under the EUA. While state landlord/tenant law may permit non-renewal without cause, the EUA is a state-court enforceable deed restriction agreed to by the owner. These agreements may be enforced in state court by any interested party. The tenant is clearly an "interested party," but the HFA could also be considered an interested party and seek enforcement of the EUA on behalf of a resident. Conclusion Owners of LIHTC properties must remember that once the EUA is executed, the right to lease non-renewal without cause is waived. Unless a tenant has violated the terms of a lease or rental agreement, an owner will be hard pressed to defend the termination of a low-income resident s occupancy in a LIHTC property.

Affordable Housing Platforms of Presidential Candidates

According to the National Low-Income Housing Coalition s (NLIHC) 2019 Out of Reach report, a full-time worker needs to earn an average hourly wage of $22.96 to afford a modest, two-bedroom rental home in the United States. This amount is called the "housing wage," and is $15.71 higher than the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour and $5.39 higher than the national average hourly wage of $17.57 that is earned by renters. In nine states and the District of Columbia, the two-bedroom housing wage is over $25 an hour. With this study as a backdrop, it is worth taking a look at the housing proposals of the 2020 presidential candidates. An Executive Order signed by President Trump in June 2019 establishes the White House Counsel on Eliminating Barriers to Affordable Housing Development and is chaired by HUD Secretary Ben Carson. The expressed goal of the order is to loosen restrictive zoning and building regulations, increase the supply of housing, and bring down housing costs. To date, this is the only action from the administration with a direct relation to housing affordability. However, because most regulatory barriers to affordability occur at the local level, the federal government has relatively little leverage in this area. One thing the executive order does do is lock in affordable housing as a 2020 issue. So, how are the current Democratic candidates for housing approaching the problem? Following is a summary description of the plans that have been made available to this point. Senator Elizabeth Warren As she does with many issues, the housing plan released by Senator Warren is very detailed. Warren s plan, "the American Housing and Economic Mobility Act," includes, among other things: Building, preserving or rehabilitating 3.2 million housing units nationwide for lower- and middle-income people in order to lower rents by 10%. This would be funded by raising the estate tax back to the Bush-era levels; Creating a down-payment assistance program designed to address the black-white homeownership gap by providing assistance to first-time homebuyers who live in formerly red-lined neighborhoods or communities that were segregated by law and are still currently low-income;Expanding fair housing legislation to bar housing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status, veteran status, or income;Extended the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) to require non-bank mortgage lenders to invest in minority communities;Providing $2 billion in assistance to mortgage borrowers who are still underwater on their home loans following the financial crisis, meaning they owe more than their homes are worth; andInstituting new requirements for sales of delinquent mortgages. Senator Cory Booker Booker s plan includes: Creation of a tax credit that would aid in capping rental costs at 30% of before-tax income;Implementing zoning reform by requiring cities to eliminate restrictive zoning rules in order to qualify for federal loan and grant programs (it should be noted that Booker is re-thinking this part of his proposal since it will hit lowest income cities the hardest. Wealthy areas that are most likely to use exclusionary zoning are also the least likely to use [or need] federal funds);Funding the construction of new housing units designated for low-income renters by providing $40 billion annually to the Housing Trust Fund;Expanding fair housing laws to prohibit housing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, or source of income;Expanding access to federal housing assistance programs (this differs 180 degrees from the Administration s current efforts to cut back on the number of people eligible for housing assistance);Creating a fund that would pay for legal counsel for renter s facing eviction;Increasing the amount of money designated for grants given to communities to administer services for the homeless; andGive $1,000 "baby bonds" to every child at birth, which can grow by up to $2,000 per year depending on the family s income. This money could then be used to fund the down payment on the purchase of a home. Senator Kamala Harris Harris s plan focuses on increasing the homeownership rates in black communities, and includes: Expanding the range of information used to create credit scores to include data such as rent and utility payments;Setting aside $100 billion for federal grants that would assist with down-payments or closing costs for families who rent or live in historically red-lined communities;Strengthening anti-discrimination laws to prevent discrimination in home sales, rentals, and mortgage lending; andHarris introduced the Rent Relief Act, which would create a refundable tax credit for households making less than $100,000 annually (or $125,000 in high-cost areas) and spend at least 30% of their income on housing costs. Mayor Pete Buttigieg Mayor Buttigieg has put forth an extensive proposal, called "The Douglass Plan," to address racial disparities in homeownership and wealth. The plan would create a "21st Century Community Homestead Act" that would be tested in select cities around the country. Through this program, a public trust would purchase abandoned properties and provide them to eligible residents. These would include people who earn less than the area s median income or those who live in historically redlined or segregated areas. Residents who participate would be given full ownership over the land and a ten-year forgivable lien to renovate the home so it could be used as a primary residence. Other proposals by the Mayor include: Funding national investment in affordable housing construction;Reforming land use rules to make it easier to build affordable housing units; andExpanding federal protections for tenants against eviction and unjust harassment. Senator Bernie Sanders While Sanders has not put forward a detailed affordable housing plan, he has proposed an "Economic Bill of Rights," which has a housing component. This plan references the fact that some people are paying "40%, 50%, 60% of their limited income in housing," and mentions urban gentrification as an issue that needs to be addressed. Former Secretary of HUD Julian Castro As a former HUD secretary who already had an understanding of affordable housing issues, Castro s plan is detailed and extensive. His proposals include: Expansion of the Housing Choice Voucher program;Creation of a refundable renter s tax credit for households who spend more than 30% of their income on housing;Allocating an additional $45 billion annually for the national Housing Trust Fund and the Capital Magnet Fund to support affordable housing initiatives;Reforming zoning laws to encourage the construction of affordable housing;Addressing homelessness by expanding funding for grant programs and creating a definition of homelessness at the federal level;Extending fair housing protections to the LGBTQ community and to individuals who were previously incarcerated;Developing an approach to identify where gentrification is occurring and help households avoid being displaced; andEstablish zoning policies that take into account climate change. Senator Amy Klobuchar Senator Klobuchar has outlined more than 100 actions she plans to take in her first 100 days in office, a number of which involve affordable housing, including: Reversing the Trump administration s proposed changes to federal housing subsidies;Expanding a pilot program that provides mobility housing vouchers to families with children to help them relocate to higher opportunity neighborhoods;Suspending changes to fair housing policy that are being sought by current HUD Secretary Ben Carson in order to combat housing segregation; andOverhaul housing policy more broadly as part of a national infrastructure plan. Representative John Delaney Congressman Delaney has proposed a $125 billion affordable housing plan that would do the following: Increase funding for the Housing Trust Fund to at least $7 billion annually;Create a $5 billion affordable housing grant program that provides funding to states and municipalities that do away with zoning restrictions limiting the construction of affordable multifamily housing (note how this differs from other proposals that would remove federal funding for localities that have exclusionary zoning; this is the "carrot" vs the "stick.")Establish a right to counsel in eviction procedures, accompanied by $500 million in federal funding for low-income renters legal representation;Increasing the funding for the Homeless Assistance Grant program and the Department of Veterans Affairs Grant and Per Diem account;Revoke the charters held by secondary-mortgage Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac over five-years and, instead, establish a government guarantee on mortgages through the Government National Mortgage Association (Ginnie Mae); andRequire borrowers to put at least 5% down to get a mortgage. None of the other candidates have put forward extensive affordable housing proposals, although all have mentioned housing as a priority. In 2018, Senator Michael Bennet introduced legislation to fight evictions by creating a national database to track instances of eviction and giving money to local and state programs that would increase tenants legal representation. Author Marianne Williamson has called for protecting homeowners from predatory lending practices and increasing access to loan modifications for distressed mortgage borrowers. Entrepreneur Andrew Yang calls for revisiting zoning rules by "taking the needs of renters and those who would be interested in moving into areas into account." Former Congressman Beto O Rourke has stated that he wants to increase funding to the National Housing Trust Fund. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand has proposed a $50 billion investment each year in the Housing Trust Fund. She also said that she would choose a HUD secretary "who understands the nature of homelessness as well as affordable housing." While all of the outlined "plans" are really nothing more than part of a campaign platform at this point, the detail of some of them shows that there is a fairly high level of thought being put into the affordable housing crisis the U.S. is facing. As the 2020 presidential campaign heats up, we will certainly hear more on the subject and can look forward to more specifics. One thing is certain - no matter who is elected President in 2020, affordable housing will be of much greater import than in any prior election.

Resident Manager Unit in a LIHTC Property - A Refresher

The ability of a Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) project to utilize an apartment as a resident manager unit was established by IRS Revenue Ruling 92-61 - way back in 1992. The ruling established that the adjusted basis of a unit occupied by a full-time resident manager in included in the eligible basis of a qualified low-income building under Section 42(d)(1) of the Code, but the unit is excluded from the applicable fraction of the building for purposes of determining qualified basis. This essentially allows a unit to be used as a resident manager s unit without decreasing the credit available to a building. The IRS considers such units to be residential rental "space," as opposed to a residential rental "unit." Thus, the treatment of the unit is similar to the treatment of common area. Manager units have traditionally been handled in two ways for LIHTC projects. The unit is considered common area (as noted above) or other area reasonably required by the project and the use of the unit supports property operations. Under this method, as noted above, the unit is included in the eligible basis of the building but is excluded from the buildings applicable fraction. For example, a 100-unit building with 100 low-income units has an applicable fraction of 100%. If the same building has an approved employee unit, there are now 99 total units and 99 low-income units and the 100% applicable fraction is maintained. In this case, the income of the employee living in the unit is irrelevant, as is any rent paid by the employee (although it is recommended that any rent charged by approved by the appropriate Housing Finance Agency [HFA]).The unit may be occupied by an employee who is also a qualified low-income resident and the unit may be considered a low-income unit. In this case, the unit is included in the building s applicable fraction. If an owner wants to set aside a unit as an employee unit under sceario #1 above, I make three general recommendations: Obtain HFA approval. While some states do not require a formal approval, there are many that do. Some states (e.g., California) require approval even when the size and location of the unit changes. All such approvals should be in writing.While the IRS will not make the charging of rent on an employee unit an audit issue, it is up to the HFA as to whether rent may be charged. So, as with the use of the unit itself, any proposed charges to the employee should be approved by the HFA.The employee should serve primarily the property at which they live. This is the one element that IRS has indicated that they would examine during an audit. The question that arises if an employee works at another property - or even has another job - is whether the presence of the employee unit is really necessary for project operations. Owners should take special care when designating an employee unit at a mixed-income property. Some HFAs will not permit a change in employee units at mixed-income projects. Generally, employee units must be occupied by an onsite manager, assistant manager, or maintenance personnel who work primarily at the property in which the unit is located. As noted in #3 above, it is critical that the employee work at the property on a full-time (or near full-time) basis. If it is intended that the employee also work at another project, HFA approval should be sought before designating the employee unit.

Administration to Issue Guidance Regarding HUD's Interpretation of Disparate Impact in Fair Housing

On Monday, August 19, 2019, the Trump administration will introduce a new rule that may change the way the federal government enforces fair housing law, making it harder for people to file fair housing discrimination complaints. The proposed regulation from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) would replace the current rule on disparate impact, a legal theory that has guided fair housing law for more than 50-years. Disparate impact refers to practices or policies than have an adverse impact on certain protected groups (e.g., race or national origin) without discriminating against them in explicit ways. In 2015, the Supreme Court recognized this form of discrimination as being prohibited under the Fair Housing Act. The proposed rule from HUD will substantially raise the burden of proof for parties claiming discrimination, making it easier for property owners to implement policies that have a discriminatory effect. In addition to weakening the disparate impact protections, the proposed rule will carve out guidance for the automated decision-making systems used by lenders and landlords that deliver judgments on credit risk, home insurance, mortgage interest rates, and decisions based on criminal records. Under the new regulation, lenders and landlords would not be responsible for the effects of an algorithm provided by a third party - a standard that will almost certainly build a backdoor to bias. The proposed regulation is not a surprise. Last June, HUD Secretary Ben Carson made it clear that HUD was looking at revising the disparate impact procedures to favor lenders and landlords. Once the rule is published on August 19, there will be a 60-day public comment period before it can be implemented. The Current Rule Presently, disparate impact cases proceed by meeting a three-part "burden-shifting" test. A plaintiff makes an allegation and must show that a practice or policy has a disparate impact based on a protected characteristic. If this is shown, the defendant offers a rebuttal, showing that there is a legitimate business reason behind the policy. If that is shown, the plaintiff has an opportunity to show that there is a less discriminatory way to accomplish the same business goal. The Proposed Change The new rule will set a five-point prima facie evidentiary test on the plaintiff side alone. This means that a party seeking to bring a discrimination case under the FHA would need to establish some level of evidence in the pleading stage. To bring forward an accusation of implicit discrimination, plaintiffs would have to demonstrate - before any discovery process - that the policy itself is flawed, and not just that the policy has a discriminatory effect. Under the five-point burden test, plaintiffs would need to 1) prove that a policy is "arbitrary, artificial, and unnecessary" to achieve a valid interest; (2) demonstrate a "robust causal link" between the practice and the disparate impact; (3) show that the policy negatively affects "members of a protected class" based on race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, or disability; (4) indicate that the impact is "significant;" and (5) prove that the "complaining party s alleged injury" is directly caused by the practice in question. The major weakness with this new procedure is that without going through a discovery process, it is nearly impossible to establish the tight causal link between the policy and the impact. In addition, the new HUD rule would establish three new defenses for landlords, lenders, and others accused of discrimination based on models and algorithms. The first defense would enable defendants to indicate that a model is not the cause of the harm. The second would allow the defendant to show that a model or algorithm is being used as intended and is the responsibility of a third party. Finally, the new rule would allow the defendant to call on a qualified expert to show that the alleged harm is not a model s fault. This new rule will give lenders and landlords a huge loophole. Many, if not most, lenders and landlords are not capable of developing their own in-house credit-risk algorithms; instead, they rely on third party vendors. By placing the burden of fairness on the vendors, HUD is establishing an incentive for users and vendors alike to decline to study the outcomes of automated decision-making systems. In other words, as long as the vendor claims to have tested for algorithmic fairness, the lender or landlord is shielded from liability. Since there are no established standards, and HUD does not propose any, to test for disparate impact, the vendors can set their own requirements for testing. If a lender or landlord is not liable for discrimination resulting from an algorithm that it uses, there is no incentive to look for a company that guarantees non-discriminatory algorithms. As for the vendors, there is no incentive to test for disparate impact since if they don t know the type of disparate impact that may result from their algorithm, it will be almost impossible to make them responsible for any discrimination. At the same time, a plaintiff will have no way of knowing what data a vendor uses to reach a leasing or mortgage decision. The vendors will be able to shield their practices behind trade secrets in the way that the algorithms are established. This is the first federal regulation to directly address algorithms and disparate impact. Based on early information on the proposed regulation, it appears that vendors will not be held liable unless their model is blatantly discriminatory. Under this proposal, it will fall on plaintiffs to determine, case by case, how an algorithm affects them by suing the company or companies responsible for making the algorithm - without any standard for what algorithmic fairness means. Civil rights organizations are going to aggressively fight this proposed regulation, while real estate and lender lobbyists will strongly support it. In truth, even if the rule becomes final, no one can be quite sure what impact it will have on fair housing claims or enforcement. As with all regulations of this type, it is likely to be fraught with unintended consequences. But, one thing is certain - if the rule becomes final, tenants and potential purchasers of housing will have a reduced chance of prevailing is disparate impact claims.

Court Rules that Voucher Fair Housing Protection Does Not Violate Rights of Owner

In a June 2019 ruling (Fletcher Props v. City of Minneapolis), the Minneapolis Appeals court reversed a lower court ruling and found that a city ordinance prohibiting apartment owners from refusing to accept voucher holders did not violate the owner s property rights. Facts of the Case An owner sued the city over a new law that bars owners from screening out prospective tenants who use Housing Choice Vouchers under the Section 8 program;The ordinance has an exception for owners who can show that having to accept voucher holders would create an "undue hardship," though owners may only use this defense after the filing of a discrimination case with the city s Civil Rights Department;The suit argued that the mandate conflicts with state law and unfairly forced the owner to comply with requirements of federal housing voucher programs for low-income residents; andThe owner also claimed that the law violates the state s Constitution because it reduces owners property values, forces owners to enter into contracts unwillingly, and represents an unnecessary government intervention in their businesses. Decision of the District Court The district court granted the owner a judgment without a trial, concluding that the ordinance deprives the owner of its right to substantive due process and equal protection under the state Constitution. The city appealed. Decision of the Appeals Court The Minnesota Appeals court reversed the lower court decision. Reasoning Factors to consider in determining whether a right is fundamental include historical practice and whether the right has uniform and continuing acceptance across the nation;When a fundamental right is not implicated (and such a right was not implicated in this case), the court applies a rational basis analysis, meaning that the court seeks to determine only whether a law is "rationally related" to a "legitimate" government interest;The court did not consider the right to rent property as implicating a fundamental right and the court, in a recent decision, applied rational-basis analysis in considering other legislation affecting rental units;The court concluded that neither the state nor the nation overall has a history of recognizing the right to rent property as a fundamental right. The right to rent property isn t a right "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty, such that neither liberty nor justice would exist if it were sacrificed;" andThe court ruled that the city ordinance rationally serves the public purpose of increasing housing opportunities for voucher holders and is not an unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious interference with a private interest. As a result, the ordinance was deemed to be constitutional. There is a growing national trend toward protection for voucher holders, with at least 14 states and 75 local jurisdictions offering such protection. This is an important case that establishes that such protections do not violate the fundamental rights of property owners.

Responsibilities of Owners of HUD-Assisted Properties Before and After Natural Disasters

Now that we are in hurricane season, it is a good idea for all properties to assess preparedness for storms and other natural disasters. While this is recommended for any property, it is a requirement for HUD-assisted projects. The Department of Housing & Urban Development (HUD) has developed guidance that covers all the aspects of servicing multifamily properties that are damaged or vacated as a result of a natural disaster in a Presidentially Declared Disaster Area (PDD). HUD added a new chapter to HUD Handbook 4350.1, Multifamily Asset Management and Project Servicing. It assembles guidance issued in previous notices and memoranda into one place (Chapter 38) and updates it with what HUD has learned since Hurricane Katrina. The chapter also applies to all HUD insured/assisted properties in situations where the Hub Director determines that an emergency exists. Owners and managers are required to report any physical damage (interior or exterior) that has resulted from a fire, flood, wind, severe cold, or other natural disaster or weather event. Once any such event occurs, owners should complete and forward damage assessments to HUD. Following an emergency or disaster event (or in anticipation of one), here are the owner s responsibilities: Maintaining a list of all residents with phone numbers, mailing address, and emails;An inventory of all items at the property;Ensure that residents provide emergency contact numbers;Develop a pre-disaster checklist that s shared with residents in case of a disaster;Develop an emergency relocation plan to relocate residents prior to a storm, especially at elderly or disabled properties and nursing homes;Contact the local HUD office following a disaster;Provide a status report for the residents and property condition;Develop tracking mechanisms to contact residents and determine their intent to return to the unit;Self-report to the National Housing Locator (owners can go to this site to list unit availability);Determine the extent of damage, security needs, resident property protection needs, etc.;Maintain prompt communication with HUD field staff when providing preliminary and final assessment surveys to assist with recovery planning;Contact the property s insurance provider to apply for property and business interruption claims;Contact the mortgagee to inquire about forbearance options;Contact the assigned Section 8 Contract Administrator or Performance Based Contract Administrator (PBCA);Apply for assistance from FEMA, Small Business Administration, State Housing Finance Agency, etc.;Determine which residents have been displaced due to unit damage or a failure of a major building system such as the electrical system, etc.;Track each displaced resident s temporary location and maintain contact information for all residents, particularly if the property is likely to have units off-line for more than 30-days; andContact FEMA for ongoing guidance and instruct residents to register with FEMA through 1-800-621-3362, or www.fema.gov. Owners should also make residents aware of their responsibilities in the event of a natural disaster. Residents are responsible for: Contacting FEMA and submitting an application for eligibility. Residents affected by the disaster must make an application with FEMA, receive an application number, and obtain a letter of eligibility from FEMA, which will specifically describe the type of eligibility. To obtain temporary rental housing, and applicant must present the FEMA letter, which will identify the resident as displaced and eligible for housing assistance. HUD will rely on a FEMA eligibility determination when affording housing assistance relief, but residents should be advised to check with the local FEMA office for ongoing guidance;Contacting their insurance carrier to submit renter s insurance claims for damage caused by the disaster (if they have such insurance);Providing the owner or manager with current contact and emergency contact information in order to receive property status information regarding the re-occupancy schedule. When possible, residents should provide alternate contact information for a relative; andResponding to owner and agent requests to return to the units. If the household does not intend to return to the unit, they should immediately notify the owner or agent in writing in accordance with residency termination procedures. Now if the time for owners and agents to be proactive. If the steps noted above have not been undertaken, doing so should be made a priority.

Online Certification May Not Always be Adequate Verification of Disability

A recent court case demonstrates that online verifications of disability may not always be adequate for purposes of proving the need for a reasonable accommodation under fair housing law. The case is Fitzsimmons v. Sand & Sea Homeowners Association, November 2018. Facts of the Case A resident alleged a disability as the result of a 2009 accident involving malfunctioning workout equipment.In 2017, the resident bought a Rottweiler puppy to serve as an assistance animal, stating that the dog was needed on the advice of his doctor.When he received a notice of violation for having a Rottweiler (which was not permitted), the resident told the property that the puppy was a service animal.As evidence, he provided service dog identification cards bought online, a handicap parking placard, and copies of disability checks to verify his need for the dog.The community denied the request stating that the documentation did not demonstrate either disability or the need for the animal.The resident filed suit under the Fair Housing Act. Finding The court dismissed the case. Reasoning The resident failed to prove he had a disability under Fair Housing law.The only information about the disability was in the complaint. No evidence of actual disability was provided.The community provided photos of the resident riding a scooter, standing, and walking without aid. Conclusion While owners and managers should not automatically reject an online certification, an owner has the right to determine if the verification meets the requirements that it is (1) reliable, and (2) from someone familiar with the person s disability. If an online certification is issued by a recognized group, or a medical or mental health provider, an owner may have to approve the request. Owners may request confirmation from the treating professional verifying that the applicant is under the provider s care and treatment and that the provider has diagnosed a medical or mental condition that renders the patient disabled. An owner may also request confirmation from the treating professional that the animal is prescribed to assist with the disability. In this case, the court ruled that the plaintiff did not prove that he was disabled, so the issue of whether the assistance animal was needed was not considered. If the plaintiff had been able to provide evidence of a disability, he would still have been required to show that the dog was needed in order to ameliorate the effects of the disability.

New Software Available for Affordable Housing Properties

MRI Software has introduced MRI Affordable Housing, a property management and compliance software program for owners and managers of affordable housing and mixed-income portfolios. This software fully integrates with MRI s conventional multi-family property management and financial solutions. It is intended to simplify management of mixed portfolios and provide advanced reporting capabilities. The software may assist owners in managing layered projects with multiple subsidies and program requirements. It is designed to track compliance rules across multiple levels. It will also allow users to automate compliance for HUD multi-family, LIHTC, HOME, and USDA Rural Development projects. According to MRI, major features include: A comprehensive compliance engine that automates the resident certification process and permits easy data transmission;At-a-glance tenant files that provide quick access to household contact information, status, important notes, and tasks to be completed;Assistance Connect online portal integration that allows for self-service certification, application intake, payment, service requests and improved communication with applicants, residents, and owners;MRI Financials native integration which offers a single source for property and financial data;Process management dashboards to increase efficiency and workflow and highlight key performance indicators;Role-based dashboards that display a snapshot of work to be completed and actionable data insight; andCentralized reporting using MRI Report Gateway. This permits combined reporting on both conventional and affordable properties. From a practical standpoint, this software is designed to eliminate multiple entries for a household and provide quick access to information and tasks to be completed. Other benefits noted by MRI include more manageable online waitlists with better integration of eligibility data. The system also offers a way to complete background checks without leaving the software. Owners and managers currently exploring affordable housing software options may want to take a look at what this new package has to offer in order to determine what best meets their needs.