A.R. Cox, Jr. v. Johnstown Housing Authority
212 A.3d 572
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2019Background
- Arthur R. Cox, Jr. participated in the Section 8/VASH tenant-based voucher program and leased an apartment at 200 Southmont Blvd., Johnstown under a HAP Contract and Tenancy Addendum that incorporated HUD family-obligation rules (including prohibitions on criminal activity and alcohol abuse that "threaten" residents or persons in the "immediate vicinity").
- On September 2, 2017, police responded to an incident in which Cox, intoxicated, allegedly propositioned a 17-year-old at the CamTran bus station ~1.9 miles from his home; he was charged and later convicted of public drunkenness.
- The Johnstown Housing Authority terminated Cox’s Section 8 assistance based on the September 2 incident (and his criminal history); Cox requested an informal hearing and then appealed to the Cambria County Common Pleas Court.
- The trial court conducted a de novo hearing, found Cox not credible, concluded the Authority permissibly terminated assistance because Cox’s alcohol-related criminal activity "may threaten" others’ health, safety, or peaceful enjoyment, and affirmed the termination.
- On appeal to the Commonwealth Court, the central question was whether substantial record evidence supported the trial court’s finding that Cox’s conduct threatened the health, safety, or peaceful enjoyment of residents or persons in the immediate vicinity of his premises.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cox’s September 2, 2017 conduct justified termination because it threatened health, safety, or peaceful enjoyment of residents or persons in the immediate vicinity | Cox: single, non-residential incident 1.9 miles away did not threaten residents or those in the immediate vicinity; insufficient evidence of a pattern or actual threat | Authority: HUD rules permit termination where criminal activity or alcohol abuse threatens health, safety, or peaceful enjoyment; termination may be based on such conduct even if off-premises | Court: Reversed trial court — Authority presented no evidence that the incident threatened residents or persons in the immediate vicinity of Cox’s premises; proximity and threat must be shown, not speculation |
| Whether "immediate vicinity" and "threaten" require a showing of proximity and an actual or imminent effect on residents | Cox: statutory/regulatory language requires proof that conduct threatened those living at or in immediate vicinity of the premises | Authority: HUD permits termination for criminal activity that threatens health/safety/peaceful enjoyment; argued sufficient here | Court: Terms construed by ordinary meaning; "immediate vicinity" and "threaten" require evidence that others were made insecure/anxious or actually threatened; no such evidence was offered |
| Whether prior arrests or criminal history (pre-approval) could justify termination | Cox: He had been vetted and approved (VASH) and prior arrests should not now be used to revoke benefits; Administrative Plan disclaims using arrests alone | Authority: Past criminal history relevant to discretionary termination | Court: Authority cannot rely solely on arrests; record lacked evidence those prior offenses threatened residents or occurred near his current premises; trial court erred to the extent it relied on past history without nexus |
| Standard of proof for termination based on criminal activity/alcohol abuse | Cox: Authority must prove criminal activity/alcohol abuse that threatens residents in immediate vicinity | Authority: HUD regs allow termination based on preponderance that household member engaged in disqualifying activity | Court: Applies HUD/regulatory standard (preponderance) but requires proof both of the disqualifying conduct and that it threatened health/safety/peaceful enjoyment of residents or persons in the immediate vicinity; Authority failed to meet that burden here |
Key Cases Cited
- Powell v. Housing Authority of the City of Pittsburgh, 760 A.2d 473 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (interpreting proximity of criminal acts relative to "immediate vicinity")
- Powell v. Housing Authority of the City of Pittsburgh, 812 A.2d 1201 (Pa.) (Supreme Court decision reversing on other grounds; discussed scope of authority to terminate for violent crime)
- Bray v. McKeesport Housing Authority, 114 A.3d 442 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (public housing authorities’ discretion is constrained by statutory/regulatory criteria)
- K. Hovnanian Pa. Acquisitions, LLC v. Newtown Twp. Bd. of Supervisors, 954 A.2d 718 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (substantial evidence standard for trial court findings)
- McLaughlin v. Centre County Housing Authority, 616 A.2d 1073 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1992) (scope of review when trial court conducts de novo hearing)