Haddon Housing Associates, Ltd. Partnership v. United States
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 5810
Fed. Cir.2013Background
- Rohrer Towers II is a HUD-subsidized housing project in New Jersey under a HAP Contract.
- Haddon filed suit in 2007 alleging HUD breached by denying rent adjustments for 2001–2006.
- The Claims Court awarded adjustments for 2004–2006 and denied 2002; it also limited 2001 damages by statute of limitations.
- The government appealed the statute of limitations ruling, the 2004–2006 adjustments, and related issues.
- Haddon cross-appealed, challenging a 2002 adjustment and challenging the 60-day notice requirement as arbitrary.
- The Federal Circuit reversed in part, affirming some rulings and reversing the application of the prevention doctrine to 2001 and 2003.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the prevention doctrine excused 2001/2003 failures to request adjustments. | Haddon relied on HUD breach to excuse nonperformance. | HUD denial and comparability study regime prevented Haddon from timely requests. | Prevention doctrine does not excuse 2001/2003 failures. |
| Whether the 1% reduction for non-turnover units was lawful. | 1% reduction mandated by 1994 Amendments breached by HUD. | Reduction required by statute; within HUD discretion. | 1% reduction deemed arbitrary and unlawful. |
| Whether the 1994 Amendments superseded the overall limitation on damages. | Court affirmed breach finding; overall limitation not controlling damages due to amendments. | ||
| Whether the six-year statute of limitations barred 2001 damages. | Statute of limitations discussed; due to prevention doctrine ruling, issue moot for 2001. | ||
| Whether the 60-day notice requirement for rent adjustments was reasonable. | Notice 95-12 imposed undue burden. | Requirement falls within HUD discretionary boundaries. | 60-day requirement is reasonable within HUD discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cisneros v. Alpine Ridge Grp., 508 U.S. 10 (U.S. 1993) (upholds comparability studies under Housing Act)
- Indiana Mich. Power Co. v. United States, 422 F.3d 1369 (Fed.Cir. 2005) (anticipatory repudiation and breach concepts related to contract claims)
- Consol. Edison, Inc. v. Ne. Utils., 426 F.3d 524 (2d Cir. 2005) (prevention doctrine applied to contract performance)
- Akanthos Capital Mgmt., LLC v. CompuCredit Holdings Corp., 677 F.3d 1286 (11th Cir. 2012) (prevention doctrine applicability in contract breach)
- Williston on Contracts, Williston § 39:3 () (treatise cited for contract-prevention concepts)
- Mendoza v. COMSAT Corp., 201 F.3d 626 (5th Cir. 2000) (prevention doctrine principles application)
- Moore Bros. Co. v. Brown & Root, Inc., 207 F.3d 717 (4th Cir. 2000) (prevention doctrine and waiver principles)
- Ne. Drilling, Inc. v. Inner Space Servs., Inc., 243 F.3d 25 (1st Cir. 2001) (prevention doctrine standard in contract)
- Tabatabai v. West Coast Life Ins. Co., 664 F.3d 663 (7th Cir. 2011) (prevention doctrine application in insurance contract)