Acknowledge that $41 million of the $89,274,944 in the attached settlement represents an amount due HUD, less DOJ’s civil debt collection fees.
2017-CF-1804 | August 21, 2017
Final Civil Action: Financial Freedom, a Division of CIT Bank, N.A., Settled Allegations of Failing To Comply With HUD’s Federal Housing Administration Servicing Requirements for HECM Claims
General Counsel
- Status2017-CF-1804-001-AOpenClosed$41,000,000Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A) resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B) that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost); or (C) that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
2017-CH-1004 | August 11, 2017
Alpine First Preston Joint Venture II, LLC, Alpine, UT, Did Not Always Comply With Its Contract With HUD and Its Own Requirements for the Marketing and Sale of HUD-Owned Properties in the State of IL
Housing
- Status2017-CH-1004-001-AOpenClosed
Implement adequate procedures and controls to ensure that it properly monitors the listing brokers to ensure compliance with its contract. The procedures and controls should include but not limited to performing quality control reviews and supervisory review of its brokers, and maintaining documentation of its quality control reviews and corrective actions.
- Status2017-CH-1004-001-BOpenClosed
Update its quality control plan to include the performance of physical inspections of the properties in its inventory.
2017-KC-0006 | July 14, 2017
HUD Did Not Conduct Rulemaking or Develop Formal Procedures for Its Single- Family Note Sales Program
Housing
- Status2017-KC-0006-001-AOpenClosed
Complete the rulemaking process for HUD’s single-family note sales program.
- Status2017-KC-0006-001-BOpenClosed
Develop and implement formal procedures and guidance for the note sales program.
2017-FW-1009 | June 29, 2017
Beverly Place Apartments Subsidized Nonexistent Tenants, Unqualified Tenants, and Tenants With Questionable Qualifications
Housing
- Status2017-FW-1009-001-AOpenClosed$574,930Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A) resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B) that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost); or (C) that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
We recommend that the Southwest Region Director of Multifamily Housing require Beverly Place’s owner to repay HUD $574,930 for subsidized units that were not occupied by qualified tenants. Repayment must be from non-Federal funds.
- Status2017-FW-1009-001-BOpenClosed$150,082Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A) resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B) that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost); or (C) that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
We recommend that the Southwest Region Director of Multifamily Housing require Beverly Place’s owner to provide support to show that the subsidies for 11 tenants with falsified income were accurate or repay HUD $150,082 for those subsidies. Repayment must be from non-Federal funds.
- Status2017-FW-1009-001-COpenClosed$77,621Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A) resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B) that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost); or (C) that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
We recommend that the Southwest Region Director of Multifamily Housing require Beverly Place’s owner to provide support to show that the subsidies for 18 tenants without files or without adequate income documentation in their files were accurate or repay HUD $77,621 for those subsidies. Repayment must be from non-Federal funds.
- Status2017-FW-1009-001-DOpenClosed
We further recommend that the Southwest Region Director of Multifamily Housing require its contract administrator for Beverly Place to verify that the owner’s recently implemented quality control program is working as designed.
- Status2017-FW-1009-001-EOpenClosed
We further recommend that the Southwest Region Director of Multifamily Housing ensure that the project-based contract administrator’s review process includes steps to obtain reasonable assurance that tenants being reported as subsidized at Beverly Place live in the subsidized units.
2017-FW-1008 | June 28, 2017
The Weslaco Housing Authority, Weslaco, TX, Paid Travel Costs That Did Not Comply With Federal, State, and Local Requirements
General Counsel
- Status2017-FW-1008-001-FOpenClosed
Take appropriate administrative sanctions, including suspension, limited denial of participation, or debarment, against the commissioners.
2017-PH-1802 | June 28, 2017
Final Civil Action Borrower Settled Allegations of Making False Statements to HUD for a Home Purchase Under the Federal Housing Administration Mortgage Insurance Program
General Counsel
- Status2017-PH-1802-001-AOpenClosed$10,000Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A) resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B) that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost); or (C) that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
Acknowledge that the attached settlement agreement for $10,000 represents an amount due HUD.
2017-LA-1004 | June 13, 2017
Cypress Meadows Assisted Living, Antioch, CA, Was Not Administered in Accordance With Its Regulatory Agreement and HUD Requirements
General Counsel
- Status2017-LA-1004-001-AOpenClosed$15,000Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A) resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B) that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost); or (C) that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
Determine legal sufficiency and if legally sufficient, pursue civil and administrative remedies against Cypress Meadows, LLC; Skyline Crest Enterprises, LLC; the project’s owner; or all three for inappropriately disbursing funds in violation of the project’s regulatory agreement, operating lease agreement, and HUD requirements.
- Status2017-LA-1004-001-BOpenClosed
Pursue appropriate civil money penalties and administrative actions, up to and including debarment, against Cypress Meadows LLC; Skyline Crest Enterprises LLC; the project’s owner; or all three for violating the project’s regulatory agreement, operating lease agreement, and HUD requirements.
Housing
- Status2017-LA-1004-001-COpenClosed$263,289Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A) resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B) that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost); or (C) that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
Repay the project from non-project funds $263,289 for ineligible salary expenses.
- Status2017-LA-1004-001-DOpenClosed$283,307Funds Put to Better Use
Recommendations that funds be put to better use estimate funds that could be used more efficiently. For example, recommendations that funds be put to better use could result in reductions in spending, deobligation of funds, or avoidance of unnecessary spending.
Remove $283,307 in ineligible accrued salary fees payable from its financial statements and records and ensure that these expenses are not accrued or paid for with project funds.
- Status2017-LA-1004-001-EOpenClosed$110,710Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A) resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B) that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost); or (C) that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
Repay the project from non-project funds $110,710 for ineligible offsite accounting expenses.
- Status2017-LA-1004-001-FOpenClosed$129,416Funds Put to Better Use
Recommendations that funds be put to better use estimate funds that could be used more efficiently. For example, recommendations that funds be put to better use could result in reductions in spending, deobligation of funds, or avoidance of unnecessary spending.
Remove $129,416 in ineligible accrued offsite accounting fees payable from its financial statements and records and ensure that these expenses are not accrued or paid for with project funds.
- Status2017-LA-1004-001-GOpenClosed$99,160Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A) resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B) that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost); or (C) that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
Repay the project from non-project funds $99,160 for ineligible personal health insurance expenses of the owner.
- Status2017-LA-1004-001-HOpenClosed$4,179Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A) resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B) that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost); or (C) that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
Repay the project from non-project funds $4,179 for excessive bank fees.