Free Response - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:01-cv-00669-FMA

Document 112-2

Filed 11/27/2007

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

BENJAMIN AND SHAKI ALLI AND BSA CORPORATION, Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 01-669C (Judge Francis M. Allegra)

DEFENDANT'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS' POST-TRIAL BRIEF

JEFFREY S. BUCHOLTZ Acting Assistant Attorney General JEANNE E. DAVIDSON Director

MARK A. MELNICK Assistant Director OF COUNSEL: Thomas G. Massouras Office of General Counsel U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development 77 West Jackson Blvd. Suite 2629 Chicago, Illinois 60604 MARLA T. CONNEELY Trial Attorney Commercial Litigation Branch Civil Division Department of Justice Attn: Classification Unit, 8th Flr. 1100 L Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20530 Tel. (202) 305-3689 Fax (202) 305-7643 Attorneys for Defendant

November 27, 2007

Case 1:01-cv-00669-FMA

Document 112-2

Filed 11/27/2007

Page 2 of 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page BACKGROUND.............................................................................................................................1 ARGUMENT...................................................................................................................................2 I. Contrary To Plaintiffs' Assertions, The Pingree Apartments Were Neither Decent, Safe, Nor Sanitary As Required By The HAP Contract And Regulatory Agreement.............................................................................................2 A. The Testimony And Reports Of Gordon Hileman And David Compo Are Unreliable And Do Not Contradict The Evidence Or Testimony Presented By The Government....................................................................2 The Testimony Offered By Plaintiffs' Other Witnesses Regarding The Conditions At Pingree Are Also Unreliable And Unsupported...................7 Plaintiffs Mischaracterize HUD Inspector Mark Spooner's Testimony, Ignore The Testimony From Other HUD Witnesses And Third-Party Inspectors, And Challenges, Without Basis, The Credibility Of Dorothy Roach.........................................................................................................12

B.

C.

II.

Contrary To Plaintiffs' Assertions, The Riverside Apartments Were Neither Decent, Safe, Nor Sanitary As Required By The Riverside HAP Contract...........14 Plaintiffs, Not HUD, Breached The Collingwood HAP Contract And Regulatory Agreement...........................................................................................19 A. An Authorized Agent Of HUD Did Not Deny The Sale Of Collingwood To Cory Fanning........................................................................................19 Contrary To Plaintiffs' Suggestion, The Collingwood Apartments Were Neither Decent, Safe, Nor Sanitary As Required By The HAP Contract And Regulatory Agreement.........................................................23

III.

B.

CONCLUSION..............................................................................................................................24

i

Case 1:01-cv-00669-FMA

Document 112-2

Filed 11/27/2007

Page 3 of 3

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) CASES Am-Pro Protective Agency, Inc. v. United States, 281 F.3d 1234 (Fed. Cir. 2002)..........................................................................................15 Armstead v. United States Dept. of Housing and Urban Dev., 815 F.2d 278 (3d Cir. 1987)...............................................................................................22 Brown v. Lynn, 385 F.Supp. 986 (N.D. Ill. 1974).......................................................................................22 Fairington Apartments of Lafayette v. United States, 7 Cl. Ct. 647 (1985)...........................................................................................................22 Fed. Crop. Ins. Corp. v. Merrill, 332 U.S. 380 (1947).....................................................................................................19, 20 Kiszka v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 372 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2004)..........................................................................................19 Nematollahi v. United States, 38 Fed. Cl. 224 (1997).......................................................................................................20 REGULATIONS 24 C.F.R. Part 5 Subpart G........................................................................................................2, 13

ii