McDonell v. Harford Cnty. Hous. Agency

KAREN MCDONELL v. HARFORD COUNTY HOUSING AGENCY

No. 794

COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND

September Term, 2016

February 12, 2018

Circuit Court for Harford County

Case No.: 12-C-16-000263-AA

UNREPORTED

Arthur, Shaw Geter, Battaglia, Lynne A. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned) JJ.

Opinion by Shaw Geter, J.

*This is an unreported opinion, and may not be cited in any paper, brief, motion, or other document filed in this Court or any other Maryland Court as either precedent within the rule of stare decisis or as persuasive authority. Md. Rule 1-104.

INTRODUCTION

This case arises from Karen McDonell's (appellant) termination from the Housing Choice Voucher Program (HCVP), after an informal hearing conducted by the Harford County Housing Agency (Housing Agency) on December 21, 2015. Appellant filed for judicial review in the Circuit Court for Harford County and the matter was heard before the court on June 24, 2016. The court affirmed the judgment of the Housing Agency and appellant, thereafter, brought this timely appeal. She presents us with the following questions, which we have renumbered and rephrased¹:

I. Did the Housing Agency violate appellant's due process rights in terminating her assistance?

II. Was the Housing Agency's decision supported by sufficient evidence in the record?

III. Would remand to the Housing Agency for a rehearing be futile?²

For reasons stated below, we shall affirm the judgment of the circuit court.

BACKGROUND

On November 4, 2011, appellant became a participant in the Housing Choice Voucher Program (Voucher Program), a federally funded rental assistance program administered by state or local agencies.³ As a result, she began to receive monthly rental assistance, to support her in paying rent for her apartment in the Lee Court Apartments complex in Edgewood, MD, where she resided with her two children. Appellant's program was managed by the Harford County Housing Agency⁴ (Housing Agency). As a condition of enrollment, appellant was required to consent to a series of obligations and responsibilities. Failure to adhere could result in termination from the program.

Appellant entered into a "Restitution Agreement" with the Housing Agency on February 5, 2015. She agreed to make monthly payments of $42.22 for a debt owed to the Agency in the amount of $760.00. As stated in the agreement, the penalty for default was termination from the Voucher Program and referral to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's Criminal Investigation Division. On June 9, 2015, appellant contacted the Housing Agency to inform them of "her difficulty paying the restitution."Soon after, she entered into a revised restitution agreement that lowered her monthly payments to $39.00. Appellant then missed her August 2015 payment and, on September 4, 2015, the Agency sent her a letter of noncompliance with the new restitution agreement stating she failed to make the August 2015 payment and informing her of termination if a payment of $30.00 was not made by September 14, 2015. The Agency sent a second letter on September 22, stating she was in arears of $60.00 for failure to pay the August 2015 and September 2015 payments and she faced termination if a payment of $60.00 was not made by September 30, 2015.

In June of 2015, criminal charges were filed against appellant, as a result of a physical altercation. She was found guilty of two counts of second-degree assault, on September 8, 2015, and incarcerated. The Housing Agency was notified of appellant's detention through a telephone call from her mother, Yvonne McDonell. Appellant was released on October 15, 2015, pending sentencing. Thereafter, she was sentenced to 10 years suspended all but time served of 37 days and placed on probation for 36 months.

On October 27, 2015, appellant's home failed the required annual inspection, due to a mouse infestation. On the same day, a letter was sent to the manager of Lee Court Apartments, with appellant "c.c'ed" on the letter. It addressed the failed inspection, reason for failure, and ordered repairs be completed by November 10^th, 2015, to avoid abatement of voucher payments. It stated failure to make repairs within 10 days after abatement will result in termination of participation in the Voucher Program. Furthermore, the letter announced that a re-inspection was scheduled for November 10, 2015, which appellant subsequently failed because she was not present.

On November 30, 2015, the Housing Agency sent a termination letter for "Violation of Program Regulations and Family Obligations" to the appellant. The stated reasons for termination were:

1) "Failure to provide access to your unit for the required Housing Quality Standard (HQS) Inspection scheduled on November 10, 2015.

2) Failure to notify the Housing Agency that the family was not residing in the assisted unit. (According to Maryland Case Judiciary Search, you were incarcerated from September 8, 2015, through October 14, 2015).

3) On June 9, 2015, you were charged with two counts of Second degree Assault in the District Court of Harford County. On September 8, 2015, the District Court of Harford County listed the disposition for both charges as guilty.

4) Failure to pay restitution to the Housing Agency in accordance with the restitution agreement you signed on February 5^th, 2015. The last payment made was on October 19, 2015."

The letter further noted that her assistance would terminate effective December 31, 2015, and that the appellant had the right to request an informal hearing. Appellant timely requested an informal hearing, which was held on December 21, 2015. On January 6, 2016, the Director of the Housing Agency issued his decision, upholding the termination. In his decision, Director Parrish stated the following:

Access was given to the unit for the Housing Agency to perform the HQS inspection. The inspection was completed, but the unit failed to pass the inspection. Restitution is currently paid up to date, although letters were presented from the Housing Agency Accounting Agency showing numerous late pays during the term of the Restitution Agreement. Evidence was presented that notification did occur regarding the family not residing in the unit during the term of incarceration, however, this notification was not within the time requirements given by the Housing Agency. Evidence was presented that you were a victim of the assault and not the aggressor,however, it was not refuted that the incarceration did occur per court order. You testified that you are working to have the charges overturned through the court system, but, at this time, your record shows that you have been found guilty.

A determination must be made based on the evidence presented at the Hearing. In this case, it is found that you have violated the rules and regulations of the program, and the termination is upheld[.]"

Appellant filed a timely petition for judicial review to the Circuit Court for Harford County on February 2, 2016. Thereafter, the Housing Agency filed their record of appellant's case with the circuit court and, on March 15, 2016, the court sent notice to appellant regarding the filing.

On March 21, 2016, appellant filed a pro se "Memorandum" with the court, stating she received "an unfair hearing" and provided "sufficient documentation" at the informal hearing. Appellant maintained that she did not receive the notice for re-inspection of her residence on November 10, 2015. She also argued that the Housing Agency "was promptly notified" of her absence from her residence due to incarceration from September 8, 2015 to October 14, 2015, by her mother, but "was not certain if it was passed on in a timely manner." Appellant further maintained that she was current regarding restitution payments prior to the Informal Hearing. Lastly, appellant noted her contention that she was not guilty of the assault charges that led to her conviction and she was currently appealing the conviction.

The Housing Agency responded on April 13, 2016, filing a "Memorandum of Law" with the circuit court, arguing their decision to terminate appellant's benefits was supported by the evidence and not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. They assertedappellant's conviction for second-degree assault, failure to provide prompt notice of her absence of more than two weeks from the residence, failure to be present for the re-inspection, and earlier delinquency of payments provided ample evidence of her violation of the agreed upon terms and conditions of the Voucher Program.

On June 24, 2016, the Circuit Court for Harford County held a hearing on appellant's petition for judicial review. Both the Housing Agency and appellant, now represented by counsel, presented evidence and made arguments before the court. Ruling from the bench, the court upheld the decision of the Agency:

I do find that the agency appropriately terminated [appellant's] Section 8 housing voucher. Under the federal regulations, the agency can terminate for any one of these reasons. They don't have to terminate for all four of them collectively, but in this case, I do see in the record, October 22, 2015, the letter to Casper Management informing them that an inspection was scheduled for October 27^th, 2015, for [appellant's] unit and was rescheduled for November 10, 2015, between the hours of nine a.m. and 12 p.m., and that [appellant] was given a copy of that letter indicating when the rescheduled inspection was, and the inspector appeared on that date and no one answered the door. So for that reason, that particular ground by the agency is sustained. They met their burden of proving they were there to inspect, and [appellant] did not answer the door.

With respect to whether she has violated the program rules because of violent criminal activity, again, the agency has also met their burden there. There doesn't have to be a conviction. There doesn't even have to be an arrest. So even if none of those two things had occurred, the agency met

...