A.A. Goode v. Housing Authority of The City of Shamokin
A.A. Goode v. Housing Authority of The City of Shamokin - 1623 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Jun 13, 2017Background
- Goode challenges the Housing Authority of Shamokin's termination of her HUD Section 8 assistance.
- Authority terminated for Goode’s failure to provide documents after a 2015 informal hearing and deemed noncompliant with its administrative plan.
- January 6, 2016 termination notice and January 13, 2016 scheduling letter led to a Jan. 20, 2016 hearing Goode did not attend.
- Goode did not timely request a continuance; Authority upheld termination after she failed to appear.
- Trial court upheld the Authority’s actions based on the record and deemed no de novo hearing necessary, then remanded for further explanation on notice and de novo rights.
- This Court vacates the trial court’s order and remands for determinations consistent with due process and de novo considerations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Goode given adequate due-process notice for the Jan. 20, 2016 hearing? | Goode did not receive timely, detailed notice. | Notice complied with the Authority’s plan. | Remand to assess actual notice and potential continuance rights. |
| Did the trial court abuse its discretion by denying a de novo hearing? | Record was incomplete; de novo review warranted. | Full record before Authority; no de novo hearing necessary. | If timely notice, de novo review may be required; remand to determine. |
| Did the trial court err by lifting the stay without a hearing or show cause? | Stay termination could affect ongoing subsidy; improper lifting. | Authority’s motion to lift stay was proper. | Remand to explain ruling on lifting the stay. |
| If notice was timely, does de novo review require weighing evidence anew? | De novo review should weigh new evidence and make findings. | De novo limits based on existing record. | Court must decide on remand whether de novo findings are needed. |
Key Cases Cited
- J.P. v. Dep’t of Human Servs., 150 A.3d 173 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (due process requires notice and opportunity to be heard)
- Miller v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 131 A.3d 110 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (when necessary findings are missing, remand is appropriate)
- Einhorn, Bd. of Pensions & Ret. of City of Phila., 442 A.2d 21 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1982) (de novo review entails weighing evidence anew with proper findings)
- McLaughlin v. Centre Cnty. Hous. Auth., 616 A.2d 1073 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1992) (de novo review requires full consideration and findings by court)
- E.N. v. M. School Dist., 928 A.2d 453 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (de novo review framework and admissible extra evidence)