Opinion ID: 2980821
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: HUD’s 2006 actions

Text: The Meachams raise a number of arguments pertaining to the correctness of HUD’s 2006 determination that denied them an increase in their replacement housing assistance. They assert that they should have been able to appeal directly to Akron, that their appeal within HUD was improper, that HUD engaged in improper ex parte discussions during their appeal, and that the compilation of the administrative record was unfair. They further argue that 590 Diagonal was not a comparable replacement dwelling. The district court’s remand order was not a final, appealable order, so the Meachams are not precluded from raising these issues here. See Schuck v. Frank, 27 F.3d 194, 196 (6th Cir. 1994). But, any procedural irregularities are connected to HUD’s 2006 determination. That decision is no longer in effect, given HUD’s 2008 determination.