Opinion

Thomas v. Housing Authority of the Birmingham District

788 So. 2d 891
1999 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 765
1999 WL 964769

Court: Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama
Filed: Oct 22, 1999
Status: Published
Author: Crawley
On the bench: Robertson, Yates, Monroe, Thompson, Crawley
Cited by: 1 cases

The opinion

CRAWLEY, Judge,

dissenting.

I must respectfully dissent. As HABD explains in its brief, Thomas’s utility allowance is not an actual payment to Thomas. Instead, it is simply an on-paper allowance used to calculate Thomas’s rent. HABD does not receive the allowance, and Thomas is not entitled to “payment” of the allowance. See 24 C.F.R. § 5.603 (d). Therefore, HABD has not accepted partial payment of Thomas’s rent, and it is entitled to proceed on its unlawful detainer action.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.