Park Properties Associates, L.P. v. United States, 15-554

Plaintiffs Park Properties Associates, L.P. and Valentine Property Associates own Section 8 multifamily properties in Yonkers, NY, and had HAP contracts with HUD to receive contract rents adjusted annually.
Congress amended Section 8 in 1994 and MAHRAA (1997), which altered automatic annual rent adjustments and created renewed-contract rent rules (including exception rents under MAHRAA §524(b)).
Plaintiffs allege HUD ceased making contractual automatic annual adjustments after the 1994 Amendments, causing underpayments; similar claims were litigated in Park Properties I.
In Park Properties I, the Court held the 1994 Amendments repudiated and breached HAP contracts; the parties later stipulated damages for certain plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs in this case sought reformation of renewal contracts and damages using the Park Properties I damage-calculation method (starting rents from the 2014 stipulation and applying OCAFs), plus vacancy damages; HUD proposed lower "but-for" rents based on 2010 comparability studies and deducted vacancy payments.
The Court adopted a calculation aligned with Park Properties I methodology (plaintiffs’ baseline rents and OCAFs), applied defendant’s vacancy deduction using plaintiffs’ vacancy numbers, and awarded $7,867,018.00 in total damages ($3,740,067 to Park Properties; $4,126,951 to Valentine).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Proper baseline rent for "but-for" contract (start point for OCAF adjustments)	Use rents from 2014 Park Properties I stipulation as baseline and apply annual OCAFs	Use "but-for" rents from 2010 comparability studies as baseline	Court adopted plaintiffs' baseline (2014 stipulation rents) and applied OCAFs
Method for calculating multi-year underpayment	Roll forward baseline by annual OCAFs; subtract actual paid rents to get underpayment per unit/month	Calculate per-unit damages as difference between defendant's but-for rent and actual rent, multiplied by months	Court used plaintiffs' OCAF roll-forward method consistent with Park Properties I
Vacancy adjustment (whether/what to deduct)	Add vacancy damages (calculated per 2014 stipulation) to gross damages; plaintiffs noted HUD paid none historically	Deduct vacancy receipts from gross damages using plaintiffs' vacancy-day data (i.e., reduce damages for days vacant)	Court accepted defendant's vacancy deduction but used plaintiffs' vacancy figures; net damages reflect that deduction
Timeliness of plaintiffs' memorandum asserting MAHRAA §524(b) status	Clarified plaintiffs fall under MAHRAA §524(b) (exception rents)	Moved to strike memorandum as untimely and filed without leave	Court struck the untimely memorandum as procedurally improper but found it substantively superfluous since §524(b) governance was already established

Park Properties Associates, L. P. v. United States, 74 Fed. Cl. 264 (2006) (court found 1994 Amendments repudiated and breached HAP contracts)