U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Office of the Inspector General for Audit
Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. Federal Building
10 Causeway Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02222-1092
New England (617) 565-5259 FAX: 565-6878
Audit Related Memorandum
No: 97-BO-219-1801
November 18, 1996
MEMORANDUM FOR: Jeanne McHallam, Director, Multifamily Housing Division,
Massachusetts State Office, 1AHM
FROM: William D. Hartnett, District Inspector General, Office of Audit, 1AGA
SUBJECT: Equity Skimming Review
RAP-UP IIB
Roxbury, Massachusetts
Project No. 023-44152
We performed a limited review of the financial operations of RAP-UP IIB to determine whether the
project owner/manager violated the equity skimming statute by: (1) withdrawing project funds while
in a non-surplus cash position, and (2) chargingthe project for expenses belonging to the owner, and
not the project.
HUD and the Department of Justice developed a strategy for prosecuting cases in which private
owners of FHA-insured multifamily projects have illegally diverted project resources. Misuse or
diversion of project assets and income, known as "equity skimming", contributes to defaults on FHA-
insured multifamily mortgages, results in substandard living conditions for low-income families,
increases the demand on HUD for further financial assistance, and results in losses to HUD through
the sale of devalued, foreclosed properties.
BACKGROUND
RAP-UP IIB, located in Roxbury, Massachusetts, is an insured Section 236 multifamily project with
51 units. The project was insured in May 1973. Our review covered the period January 1, 1993 to
August 31, 1996.
The project is owned by Roxbury Action Program, Inc., whose general partner is Lloyd King. A
management fee of six percent of rents collected is paid to HighFort Management, Inc. (management
agent), an identity of interest company of the general partner.
HUD's review of the annual audited financial statements for fiscal years ended December 31, 1993
and 1994, identified advances to affiliated parties. HUD instructed the management agent to return
these advances to the project. The project was never repaid.
A physical inspection conducted by the mortgagee in April 1996 rated the overallcondition of the
property as satisfactory. The project is rated as financially troubled by the MA State Office.
SCOPE
We reviewed the project's annual audited financial statements for fiscal years ended 1993 through
1995 and monthly accounting reports for the months January through June 1996. Indicators of
potential equity skimming and expenses charged o
t the project which may be the responsibility of the
owner, were identified.
We performed a limited on-site review and reviewed the project's books and records as of August 31,
1996. We reviewed supporting documentation relating to the indicators of equity skimming and
unrelated project expenses that had been noted. We conducted interviews with the project owner and
the owner's fee accountant.
We also held discussions with the HUD Massachusetts State Office, Multifamily Housing Division,
Asset Management Team Leader and Asset Manager responsible for this project.
* * * * * *
Within 60 days, please provide us with a status report on: (1) the corrective action taken; (2) the
proposed corrective action and the date to be completed; or (3) why actionis considered unnecessary.
Also, please furnish us copies of any correspondence or directives issued because of the review.
Should your staff have any questions, please contact our office at (617) 565-5259.
CONCLUSION
The project owner withdrew project funds of $90,684 between January 1,1993 and August 31, 1996,
while the project was in a non-surplus cash position. The project was in a non-surplus cash position,
per the audited financial statements, as follows:
Year Amount
97-BO-219-1801 Page 2
1993 ($154,912)
1994 ($161,202)
1995 ($116,573)
The $90,684 consisted of $40,209 in advances to the management agent, and $50,475 for ineligible
and unsupported tenant services.
Advances to Management Agent
Project funds of $40,209 were advanced to the management agent to cover payroll and vendor
charges that are paid by the management agent on the project's behalf. The funds represent the total
amount advanced in excess of actual expenses at August 31, 1996. Advances are made monthly
based on unsupported estimates by the management agent, who is also the project owner. The
amount of over-advancement has been increasing. The over-advanced balance at fiscal year ended
December 31, 1993 was $7,775.
These advances to the management agent are contrary to provisions of the Regulatory Agreement.
Paragraph 6(b) of the project's Regulatory Agreement provides that theowners shall not "pay out any
funds, other than from surplus cash, except for reasonable operating expenses and necessary
repairs."
Tenant Service Expenses
Project funds of $50,475 were charged for tenant services which are both ineligible and unsupported.
Funds of $40,400 were paid to Highland Park Development, a State of Massachusetts
subsidized project which is also owned and operated by the same individual as the subject
property. The basis for these charges was not provided by the project owner; nor was
information regarding when services were provided, who received the services, and who
provided the services. Invoices supplied to us indicate that services were rendered ni
connection with a tenant services contract; however, the project owner advised that no
contract exists.
Funds of $10,075 were paid in connection with the Title VI Preservation application and
appraisal. These cost are the responsibility of the project owner.
The use of project funds for the above two items is also contrary to the project's Regulatory
Agreement, Paragraph 6(b).
The project owner agreed with our conclusions and showed a willingness to refund the money to the
Page 3 97-BO-219-1801
project. Therefore, involvement of the United States Attorney's Office is not warranted at this time.
However, if an acceptable agreementto recover these funds within a timely fashion cannot be reach,
this case will be presented to the United States Attorney's Office, District of Massachusetts, for
possible civil action.
Recommendation We are recommending that your office:
1A. Execute an agreement with the project owner to
recover the unauthorized withdrawals ofproject funds,
and to prevent the project owner from similar
unauthorized withdrawals in the future. Assessment of
interest and penalty should be considered.
97-BO-219-1801 Page 4
Appendix A
Distribution
Secretary Representative, 1AS
Director, Office of Multifamily Housing Development, HMD
Assistant to the Secretary for Field Management, SC, Room 7106
Director, Housing, HF, Room 5132
Acquisition Librarian, Library, AS, Room 8141
Chief Financial Officer, F, Room 10166
Deputy Chief Financial Officer for Operations, FO, Room 10166
Page 5 97-BO-219-1801
Equity Skimming Review, Roxbury, MA
Published by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Inspector General on 1996-11-18.
Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)