Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority v. K & D Group, Inc., 618 F. App'x 842

CMHA (a public housing agency) administered Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers; K & D is a private landlord. Plaintiffs (Velez, Hatcher) leased K & D units and renewed on short-term (month-to-month or <1 year) terms.
K & D charged short-term lease fees ($35–$100/month) for shorter terms to cover turnover/marketing risks; CMHA policy historically did not treat such fees as "rent."
Plaintiffs sued CMHA under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging the short-term fees are "rent" under the Housing Act, which would affect subsidy calculations.
CMHA filed a third-party complaint against K & D seeking indemnity/contribution if the fees are deemed rent, arguing K & D should have reported them as rent to CMHA when calculating housing assistance payments.
The district court held the fees were not rent, granted K & D summary judgment, and dismissed CMHA’s third-party claim; CMHA appealed contingent on this Court’s resolution of whether the fees are rent.
This Court, having concluded (in the related Velez appeal) that the fees are rent under the Act, reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to K & D and reinstated CMHA’s third-party complaint; remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether short-term lease fees qualify as "rent" under Section 8	Fees are part of total monthly charge and thus constitute rent that must be reported for subsidy calculations	Fees are separate charge, not "rent"; CMHA previously told K & D fees were separate	Court held fees are rent under the Act (per related Velez decision) and reversed dismissal
Whether CMHA’s third-party indemnity/contribution claim against K & D survives	CMHA: if fees are rent, K & D failed to report them and is liable to CMHA for amounts CMHA owes plaintiffs	K & D: no liability because fees are not rent; moreover, K & D informed CMHA and was told fees were separate	Reinstated CMHA’s third-party complaint and remanded for proceedings consistent with fees being rent
Whether summary judgment in favor of CMHA against K & D should be entered	CMHA sought summary judgment against K & D if fees are rent	K & D opposed; district court did not decide this on the merits	Court did not decide this issue; remanded for district court to consider it
Standard of review for summary judgment	N/A (procedural)	N/A	Court reviews grant of summary judgment de novo per Fed. R. Civ. P. 56/a/ (citing Cass)

Hills v. Gautreaux, 425 U.S. 284 (1976) (discussing expansion of HUD’s role and congressional housing programs)
Cass v. City of Dayton, 770 F.3d 368 (6th Cir. 2014) (summary-judgment standard reviewed de novo)