Opinion ID: 399881
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Mootness: Setting Aside HUD Construction Financing Commitments

Text: 29 In the present case, the plaintiffs contend that the tainted approval of federal subsidization for the Project must be set aside. However, they do not specify how this could be accomplished. In view of the fact that the complex has been built and the construction company has been paid, we see no way that HUD's already-satisfied construction financing commitments can now be set aside. HUD has enabled the developer to obtain permanent financing through another governmental agency (GNMA) of the nearly eight million dollars of construction costs. In accordance with the terms of the mortgage, the developer must now repay these sums to this nondefendant agency (GNMA) over a forty-year period. All that remains for GNMA to do is to collect the mortgage loan payments from the developer. Thus, at least with respect to this aspect of the plaintiffs' claim for relief, the claim is now moot. 30