Reimburse the appropriate projects their portion of $11,184 that it charged for ineligible items.
2017-KC-1001 | December 14, 2016
Majestic Management, LLC, a Multifamily Housing Management Agent in St. Louis, MO, Did Not Always Comply With HUD’s Requirements When Disbursing Project Funds
Housing
- Status2017-KC-1001-003-AOpenClosed$11,184Questioned 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.
- Status2017-KC-1001-003-BOpenClosed$48,891Questioned 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.
Provide documentation to support that $48,891 was spent for eligible purposes or reimburse the appropriate projects for the balance.
2017-KC-0001 | October 13, 2016
FHA Paid Claims for an Estimated 239,000 Properties That Servicers Did Not Foreclose Upon or Convey on Time
Housing
- Status2017-KC-0001-001-AOpenClosed$2,238,721,464Funds 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.
PriorityPriorityWe believe these open recommendations, if implemented, will have the greatest impact on helping HUD achieve its mission to create strong, sustainable, inclusive communities and quality affordable homes for all.
Issue a change to regulations at 24 CFR Part 203, which would avoid unnecessary costs to the FHA insurance fund, allowing an estimated $2.23 billion to be put to better use. These changes include (1) a maximum period for filing insurance claims and (2) disallowance of expenses incurred beyond established timeframes.
Status
The Federal Housing Administration (FHA) reported that the recommendation cannot be closed out without the publication of the FHA Maximum Claim Rule. The proposed changes have been on HUD’s regulatory agenda since Spring 2020 but, as of July 2025, the Office of Single Family Housing does not have an estimated publication date.
Analysis
To fully address this recommendation, HUD must publish the FHA Maximum Claim Rule. Implementation of this rule should result in HUD putting $2.23 billion to better use.
2016-AT-1014 | September 29, 2016
The Broward County Housing Authority, Lauderdale Lakes, FL, Did Not Always Comply With HUD’s and Its Own Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program Requirements
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2016-AT-1014-001-AOpenClosed$28,199Questioned 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.
Reimburse its program $28,199 ($19,771 $7,793 $635) from non-Federal funds for the overpayment of housing assistance and ineligible administrative fees it received for the deficiencies cited in this report.
2016-PH-1006 | August 30, 2016
The Housing Authority of the City of Annapolis, MD, Did Not Always Administer Its Resident Opportunities and Self-Sufficiency Program in Accordance With Applicable Requirements
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2016-PH-1006-001-AOpenClosed$292,611Questioned 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.
Provide documentation to support program accomplishment data related to disbursements totaling $292,611 or repay HUD from non-Federal funds for any amount that it cannot support.
2015-LA-1009 | September 29, 2015
loanDepot’s FHA-Insured Loans With Downpayment Assistance Funds Did Not Always Meet HUD Requirements
Housing
- Status2015-LA-1009-001-EOpenClosed$72,210Questioned 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.
Reimburse FHA borrowers $25,700 for fees that were not customary or reasonable and $46,510 in discount fees that did not represent their intended purpose.
2015-LA-1010 | September 29, 2015
loanDepot's FHA-Insured Loans With Golden State Finance Authority Downpayment Assistance Gifts Did Not Always Meet HUD Requirements
Housing
- Status2015-LA-1010-001-EOpenClosed$13,726Questioned 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.
Reimburse $13,726 to FHA borrowers for the fees that were not customary or reasonable.
2015-AT-0002 | August 20, 2015
HUD’s Office of Multifamily Asset Management and Portfolio Oversight Did Not Comply With Its Requirements For Monitoring Management Agents’ Costs
Housing
- Status2015-AT-0002-001-AOpenClosed
Comply with its Management Agent Handbook requirements that stipulate HUD must perform management reviews of the management agent’s central office activities as well as regular onsite reviews of functions carried out at the projects. These central office reviews should be performed at least once every 18 months.
2015-CH-0001 | July 30, 2015
HUD Did Not Always Provide Adequate Oversight of Its Section 203(k) Rehabilitation Loan Mortgage Insurance Program
Housing
- Status2015-CH-0001-001-AOpenClosed$792,837Questioned 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 HUD’s Deputy Assistant Secretary for Single Family Housing require the lenders to support that the repairs to the properties associated with the 32 loans without evidence of permits complied with local code or reimburse HUD $792,837 for the escrow repair funds.
- Status2015-CH-0001-001-BOpenClosed$305,395Questioned 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 HUD’s Deputy Assistant Secretary for Single Family Housing require the lenders to support that the repairs to the properties associated with the six loans were not structural repairs or indemnify HUD for the four active loans with a total estimated loss of $222,073 and reimburse HUD for the actual loss of $83,322 incurred on the sale of two properties associated with FHA case numbers 052-4308836 and 034-8239100.
- Status2015-CH-0001-001-COpenClosed$83,715Questioned 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 HUD’s Deputy Assistant Secretary for Single Family Housing require the lenders to support that the borrower for FHA case number 451-1165810 was not reimbursed for the cost of labor or indemnify the loan with an estimated loss amount of $83,715, based on the loss severity rate of 50 percent of the unpaid principal balance of $167,429 as of January 29, 2015.
- Status2015-CH-0001-001-DOpenClosed$39,367Questioned 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.
Support that the repair conditions and comments indicated in the direct endorsement underwriter form, form HUD-54114, were satisfied for FHA case number 501-8198149. If the repair conditions and comments were not properly addressed, the lenders should indemnify the loan with an estimated loss amount of $39,367, based on the loss severity rate of 50 percent of the unpaid principal balance of $78,733 as of January 29, 2015.
2015-LA-1005 | July 08, 2015
NOVA Financial & Investment Corporation’s FHA-Insured Loans With Downpayment Assistance Gifts Did Not Always Meet HUD Requirements
Housing
- Status2015-LA-1005-001-EOpenClosed$383,212Questioned 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.
Reimburse FHA borrowers $376,102 for the unallowable, misrepresented discount fees and $7,110 for fees that were not customary or reasonable.
2015-LA-0002 | July 05, 2015
HUD Did Not Provide Adequate Oversight of the Section 184 Indian Home Loan Guarantee Program
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2015-LA-0002-001-AOpenClosed$76,967,618Funds 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.
Develop and implement written policies and procedures with an emphasis on increased controls toward the monitoring, tracking, underwriting, and evaluating of the Section 184 program. Implementing these controls would reduce the current high level of risk in the program and result in potentially $76,967,618 in funds to be put to better use (see appendix A).
- Status2015-LA-0002-001-BOpenClosed
Develop and implement policies and procedures for a standardized monthly delinquency report format that lenders must follow when submitting information to OLG.
- Status2015-LA-0002-001-COpenClosed
Develop and implement policies and procedures to deny payments to direct guarantee lenders for claims on loans that have material underwriting deficiencies.
- Status2015-LA-0002-001-DOpenClosed
Develop and implement policies and procedures to ensure that OLG uses enforcement actions available under 12 U.S.C. 1715z-3a(g) for lenders that do not underwrite loans according to the Section 184 processing guidelines.
- Status2015-LA-0002-001-HOpenClosed
Ensure that only underwriters that are approved by OLG are underwriting Section 184 loans.
- Status2015-LA-0002-001-IOpenClosed
Develop and implement written policies and procedures for situations in which the borrower for a Section 184 loan is an Indian housing authority, a tribally designated housing entity, or an Indian tribe.
2015-NY-1002 | November 29, 2014
The Freeport Housing Authority, Freeport, NY, Did Not Administer Its Low-Rent Housing and Homeownership Programs in Accordance With HUD’s Regulations
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2015-NY-1002-002-COpenClosed$1,250,417Questioned 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 Director of HUD’s New York Office of Public and Indian Housing require Authority officials to provide supporting documents for the proper use of $1,250,417 in sale proceeds from the scattered-site properties. Any amounts not supported or found to be improperly used should be repaid to the homeownership program from non-Federal funds.