welcome to elawyers.us
Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change
  1. Home
  2. Find a Lawyer
  8. Matthew Christopher Bryant
Matthew Christopher Bryant
Matthew Christopher Bryant
Visitors: 68
0
Bar #434450(FL)     License for 41 years
Tallahassee FL

Are you Matthew Christopher Bryant? Claim this page now or Cliam yourself lawyer page

20-000140BID  BERKELEY LANDING, LTD., AND BERKELEY LANDING DEVELOPER, LLC vs FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION  (2020)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jan. 14, 2020
The issue is whether the actions of Florida Housing concerning the review and scoring of the responses to Request for Applications 2019-102 (“RFA”), titled “Community Development Block Grant--Disaster Recovery (‘CDBG- DR’) to be Used in Conjunction with Tax-Exempt MMRB and Non- Competitive Housing Credits in Counties Deemed Hurricane Recovery Priorities,” were contrary to the agency’s governing statutes, rules, policies, or the RFA specifications.Resolution of five consolidated protests involving seven RFA applicants and various issues.
20-000143BID  HOMESTEAD 26115, LLC vs FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION  (2020)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jan. 14, 2020
The issue is whether the actions of Florida Housing concerning the review and scoring of the responses to Request for Applications 2019-102 (“RFA”), titled “Community Development Block Grant--Disaster Recovery (‘CDBG- DR’) to be Used in Conjunction with Tax-Exempt MMRB and Non- Competitive Housing Credits in Counties Deemed Hurricane Recovery Priorities,” were contrary to the agency’s governing statutes, rules, policies, or the RFA specifications.Resolution of five consolidated protests involving seven RFA applicants and various issues.
20-000145BID  HTG BELLA VISTA, LLC vs FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION  (2020)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jan. 14, 2020
The issue is whether the actions of Florida Housing concerning the review and scoring of the responses to Request for Applications 2019-102 (“RFA”), titled “Community Development Block Grant--Disaster Recovery (‘CDBG- DR’) to be Used in Conjunction with Tax-Exempt MMRB and Non- Competitive Housing Credits in Counties Deemed Hurricane Recovery Priorities,” were contrary to the agency’s governing statutes, rules, policies, or the RFA specifications.Resolution of five consolidated protests involving seven RFA applicants and various issues.
20-001139BID  SIERRA MEADOWS APARTMENTS, LTD vs NARANJA LAKES HOUSING PARTNERS, LP, SLATE MIAMI APARTMENTS, LTD., AND FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION  (2020)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Mar. 02, 2020
Whether the Petitions filed by Ambar Trail, Ltd.; Sierra Meadows Apartments, Ltd.; and Quail Roost Transit Village IV, Ltd., should be dismissed for lack of standing.Petitioner failed to demonstrate that they could receive funding under any scenario or that the process was otherwise fundamentally unfair; therefore, recommended dismissal for lack of standing.
20-001140BID  QUAIL ROOST TRANSIT VILLAGE IV, LTD vs NARANJA LAKES HOUSING PARTNERS, LP, SLATE MIAMI APARTMENTS, LTD., AND FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION  (2020)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Mar. 02, 2020
Whether the Petitions filed by Ambar Trail, Ltd.; Sierra Meadows Apartments, Ltd.; and Quail Roost Transit Village IV, Ltd., should be dismissed for lack of standing.Petitioner failed to demonstrate that they could receive funding under any scenario or that the process was otherwise fundamentally unfair; therefore, recommended dismissal for lack of standing.
20-001138BID  AMBAR TRAIL, LTD vs NARANJA LAKES HOUSING PARTNERS, LP, SLATE MIAMI APARTMENTS, LTD., AND FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION  (2020)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Mar. 02, 2020
Whether the Petitions filed by Ambar Trail, Ltd.; Sierra Meadows Apartments, Ltd.; and Quail Roost Transit Village IV, Ltd., should be dismissed for lack of standing.Petitioner failed to demonstrate that they could receive funding under any scenario or that the process was otherwise fundamentally unfair; therefore, recommended dismissal for lack of standing.
19-002328BID  THE VISTAS AT FOUNTAINHEAD LIMITED PARTNERSHIP vs FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION  (2019)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: May 02, 2019
The issues in this protest are whether Respondent's intended action——i.e., deeming Petitioner's application ineligible for funding on the grounds that the amount of capital the applicant's equity proposal states will be invested during construction is insufficient to cover development costs——is contrary to governing statutes, administrative rules, or the specifications of the solicitation; and, if so, whether this erroneous action is contrary to competition, clearly erroneous, or arbitrary or capricious.Respondent's intended action of deeming an application ineligible due to material ambiguity in the application regarding the amount of equity to be paid prior to construction completion should not be disturbed.
19-001397BID  AMELIA COURT AT CREATIVE VILLAGE - PHASE II PARTNERS, LTD. vs FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION  (2019)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Mar. 15, 2019
The issue in this bid protest matter is whether Respondent, Florida Housing Finance Corporation’s, intended award of funding under Request for Applications 2018-112 was contrary to its governing statutes, rules, or the solicitation specifications.Neither Pet'r.(s) proved that Florida Housing's intended award is contrary to its governing statutes, rules, or the solicitation specifications; further, the existence of a temporary injunction does not inhibit Florida Housing from awarding tax credits.
18-002132BID  CHANNEL SIDE APARTMENTS, LTD vs FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION  (2018)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Apr. 26, 2018
The issues presented for determination are whether Florida Housing Finance Corporation’s determination that the three applicant-parties were eligible for the allocation of low-income housing tax credits; and its intended decision to award such tax credits to Ocean Breeze East Apartments, LLC, are contrary to governing statutes, rules, or the solicitation specifications.1/Petitioners failed to prove that Florida Housing's determinations of eligibility and its intended award of tax credits were clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary or capricious.
18-003806BID  RENAISSANCE POINTE APARTMENTS, LLC vs MIDTOWN LOFTS, LTD., AND FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION  (2018)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jul. 18, 2018
The issue is whether the decision of Respondent Florida Housing Finance Corporation (FHFC) to waive, as a minor irregularity, the failure of Respondent Midtown Lofts, LTD. (Midtown) to disclose in its application for federal low-income housing tax credits (LIHTC) the existence of two occupied dwelling units on the property proposed for development is clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious (Clearly Erroneous), as provided by section 120.57(3)(f), Florida Statutes.Not clearly erroneous for agency to treat discrepancy as a minor irregularity because it did not confer competitive advantage on applicant.

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer