Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-477 CivilTHERESA A. MARTIN Appellant THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND Respondent : IN THE COURT OF COMMON :PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 03-0477 CIVIL TERM : APPEAL FROM LOCAL AGENCY :DETERMINATION IN RE: PETITION FOR APPEAL FROM LOCAL AGENCY DETERMINATION Hoffer, P.J.: Before the Court is the Petition for Appeal from Determination of the Housing Authority of the County of Cumberland Terminating Appellant from the Rental Assistance Program. A hearing de novo was held. The appellant, Ms. Martin, avers that she complied with the obligations of the Program and should not be terminated from the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program. In response, the Housing Authority contends that Ms. Martin was lawfully terminated from the Program due to her failure to comply with such obligations. STATEMENT OF FACTS The Housing Authority of Cumberland County administers the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program, which is a rental assistance program created by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to provide housing for Iow income persons. The program is administered by the Housing Authority in accordance with HUD regulations. Those who participate in the program agree to perform certain obligations in exchange for the receipt of rental assistance. Families that are admitted must comply with the "family obligations" which are defined by federal regulations.1 Included in the obligations, a participant must notify the Authority of all changes in family income within fourteen (14) calendar days of the change, with "income changes" to include a change in jobs, increase in pay, and job layoffs. The appellant, Theresa A. Martin, has been a participant in the Program for approximately ten and one-half years. Each year, Martin signed a Section 8 Housing Assistance Family Obligations Form advising her that her failure to supply requested information within fourteen (14) days will result in termination of assistance. The Authority took action to terminate the Appellant from the Program due to the Appellant's violation of the applicable aforementioned "family obligations." The Appellant's termination from the Program has been appealed to this court pursuant to the Local Agency Law at 2 P.S. Sections 551-555, 751-754.2 Martin was notified by the Authority through letters dated June 11, 1996, December 16, 1998, September 20, 1999, and February 5, 2001 of her failure to provide necessary income verification. The Authority argues that Martin failed to notify the Authority of a change in employment that occurred in April 2001. The Authority also argues that Martin failed to notify the Authority of the termination of See 24 CFR 982.551. The applicable federal regulations pertaining to the Program may be found at 24 CFR 982, et seq. 2 her employment at Giant Food Store in May 2002. On December 17, 2002, the Authority mailed a Termination of Assistance letter to Martin advising her that the basis for the termination was the failure to pay rent and the fact that Martin was being evicted. Martin appealed the decision of termination of assistance. Subsequent to the mailing of the Termination of Assistance letter, the Authority did learn from Giant that Martin had last worked at Giant in May 2002. Martin was then advised of the scheduling of her informal hearing on the appeal and was given written notification that, in addition to the failure to pay rent issue, the matter of the failure to report the change in employment would also be addressed at the informal hearing. Martin, who was represented by counsel at the informal hearing, provided evidence of letters dated May 28, 20023 and July 10, 2002 from Martin to her Authority caseworker advising of the change in employment in May 2002. The Authority claims that the letters were not received by the Authority or the Authority caseworker. Martin also avers that between May 22, 2002'~ and May 28, 2002, Ms. Martin called the Housing Authority in an effort to advise the Authority that she 3 At Ms. Martin's request, on May 28, 2002 or May 29, 2002, her father delivered to the Housing Authority a letter addressed to her Authority caseworker dated May 28, 2002. The letter informed the Authority that Ms. Martin was no longer working at Giant. The date Martin's employment ended at Giant grocery store. was no longer employed at Giant. Martin asserts that when she called the Authority to report her change in job status, she was told that her caseworker was unavailable. The Authority claims that the case file on Martin contains all written communications received from and mailed to Martin. The Authority also claims that its case file on Martin contains a record of all verbal communications made between Martin and her Authority case worker, and that there is no record of any phone messages from Martin. However, Ms. Martin states that she left several telephone messages and voice mails requesting that her caseworker return her calls. Ms. Martin's caseworker failed to respond to any of Ms. Martin's telephone messages or voice mails. DISCUSSION The issue before the Court is whether the Authority established that Ms. Martin has failed to comply with the family obligations. The burden of proof in civil matters is measured by a preponderance of the evidence.5 As evidence supporting the claims made by each party is of equal weight, the Authority did not prove its case by a preponderance of the evidence and therefore failed to carry its burden. Furthermore, it seems that by its own policies, the Housing Authority should have employed a less severe remedy before resorting to termination. The Housing Authority has adopted an Administrative Plan stating that it is the 5 See Se-Linq Hosiery v. Mar.quiles, 70 A.2d 854, (Pa. 1950) (stating the evidence offered by the burdened party does not become proof until it preponderates in evidentiary weight against the evidence of the opposing party). 4 Housing Authority's "objective to resolve disputes at the lowest level possible, and to make every effort to avoid the most severe remedies.''6 There is no indication that the Housing Authority made any efforts to resolve this dispute through a remedy less severe than termination from the Program. In addition, the Housing Authority's Administrative Plan provides that "the presence of a disability may be considered as a mitigating circumstance during the informal review process.''7 Before deciding to terminate Ms. Martin from the Program, the Authority could have reflected on Ms. Martin's inability to work due to a serious heart condition, carpal tunnel syndrome and other ailments. Moreover, the Authority could have considered the fact that one of Ms. Martin's children is a special needs child who could suffer irreparable harm if rental assistance is terminated. CONCLUSION Because the Authority's evidence did not rise to a level sufficient to sustain termination of Ms. Martin from the Housing Choice Voucher Program, the Authority's decision is reversed. As a result, Ms. Martin may continue participating in the Program. 6 Appellant Exhibit 1. 7 Appellant Exhibit 1. Administrative Plan, Chapter 19, Section D, p. 19-5. Administrative Plan, Chapter 19, Section F, p. 19-8. THERESA A. MARTIN Appellant vi. THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND Respondent : IN THE COURT OF COMMON :PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 03-0477 CIVIL TERM : APPEAL FROM LOCAL AGENCY :DETERMINATION IN RE: PETITION FOR APPEAL FROM LOCAL AGENCY DETERMINATION ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this day of ,2003, upon a Petition for Appeal from Determination of the Housing Authority Cumberland County Terminating Appellant from Rental Assistance Program and after a hearing de novo, it is hereby ORDERED that the decision of the Housing Authority of Cumberland County terminating Theresa A. Martin from the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program is REVERSED, and that the Housing Authority of Cumberland County shall permit her to continue participating in the program. By the Court, Pamela Smith, Esquire Counsel for Ms. Martin, Appellant MIDPENN LEGAL SERVICES 8 Irvine Row Carlisle, PA 17013 Christopher C. Houston, Esquire Counsel for Housing Authority of the County of Cumberland, Respondent 114 N. Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 George E. Hoffer, P.J. 6