About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

3 1 (1989-2022)

handle is hein.usfed/huddec0003 and id is 1 raw text is: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES In the Matter of DARLENE V. SOLLIE and . HUDALJ 89-1327-DB (LDP) SOLLIE REALTY Respondents Richard T. Ince, Esquire For the Respondent Geoffrey T. Roupas, Esquire For the Government Before: William C. Cregar Administrative Law Judge INITIAL DETERMINATION Statement of the Case This proceeding arose as a result of an appeal by the Respondents of a limited denial of participation (LDP) issued by the Minneapolis Office of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). By letter dated January 27, 1989, Respondents were denied participation in Federal Housing Administration (FHA) single-family insurance programs until July 1, 1989. A hearing on this matter was held on April 25, 1989, in St. Paul, Minnesota.' The parties agreed to the following statement of issues: 1. Whether Respondents participated in a scheme which overstated the sales price of a property to be financed by an FHA loan, by taking a false or misleading action, and making at least one false statement concerning the amount of the sales price, -2- resulting in FHA insurance from HUD in excess of the amount it should have been; and whether these acts constituted irregularities as defined in 24 C.F.R. 24.26(a) (2), and are causes for a limited denial of participation. 2. Whether Respondents certified in connection with the HUD single family mortgage insurance program that the sales price of a property was in excess of what they knew it actually to be, and whether this was a false certification constituting cause for a limited denial of participation under 24 C.F.R. 24.26(a) (7). 3. Whether Respondents made and/or procured to be made one or more false statements concerning the sales price of the property for the purpose of influencing 'The record was closed at the conclusion of the hearing. On May 3, 1989, Government's counsel filed a Motion to Reopen the Hearing Record for the purpose of supplementing his closing oral argument on the issue of intent. Attached to his Motion is the Government's Additional Closing Statement. The Government has not supplied any reason why the record should be reopened or why the additional closing argument could not have been made at the conclusion of the hearing. Accordingly, the motion is denied. I have not given any consideration to the matters contained in the attached Additional Closing Statement.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most