DeCambre v. Brookline Housing Authority
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 10738
1st Cir.2016Background
- DeCambre is a Section 8 voucher participant whose irrevocable, disability-based Supplemental Needs Trust (SNT) was funded with lump-sum tort settlements; trustee had sole discretion over disbursements.
- For 2013 recertification BHA reviewed SNT records, counted roughly $62,829 in SNT disbursements as annual income, and terminated DeCambre's subsidy effective Feb 1, 2014.
- DeCambre administratively appealed and requested reasonable accommodation to exclude certain SNT disbursements; BHA and its hearing officer upheld the income calculation and denied the accommodation.
- DeCambre sued (state court, removed to federal) under Section 1983 alleging miscalculation under the Housing Act and disability discrimination; district court ruled for defendants but remanded for further factual consideration of some expenditures.
- First Circuit reviewed de novo legal questions (case decided on stipulated facts) and focused on whether HUD regulations required excluding SNT principal disbursements from annual income.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Section 8 rent-ceiling/related HUD regs create a private right enforceable via §1983 | Section 8 rent ceiling unambiguously creates an individualized right to a subsidy tied to income and is enforceable under §1983 | BHA contended no cognizable §1983 claim (district court questioned existence of constitutional property right) | Court: Section 8 rent-ceiling is analogous to Brooke Amendment; it creates a presumptively enforceable right under §1983 (BHA waived challenge to that presumption) |
| Whether distributions of principal from an irrevocable SNT (funded by lump-sum settlements) must be counted as annual income when disbursed | DeCambre: principal retains lump-sum exclusion character and should be excluded from annual income even when later disbursed from an irrevocable trust | BHA: §5.603(b) requires counting “any income distributed from the trust”; routing through SNT prevents lump-sum exclusion; alternatively withdrawals of assets are income | Court: Reversed BHA — principal disbursements from settlement-funded irrevocable SNT should not be treated as annual income on disbursement; HUD text and purposes support exclusion of principal as lump-sum additions unless another exclusion/exception does not apply |
| Whether deference is owed to BHA’s interpretation of HUD regs | N/A (DeCambre urged narrower reading of regs) | BHA urged deference to its reading; relied on HUD advisory letter | Court: No deference to BHA; local housing authority lacks nationwide rulemaking authority and BHA made a legal, not fact-specific, interpretation |
| Remedy / procedural posture: whether remand/denial of injunctive relief was correct | DeCambre sought reinstatement of subsidy and injunction against counting SNT disbursements | BHA had affirmed its calculations and cross-appealed remand | Court: Reversed district court on Housing Act claim, vacated denial of preliminary injunction and remand order, remanded for appropriate relief; dismissed BHA’s cross-appeal as moot; discrimination claims vacated as moot unless shown otherwise |
Key Cases Cited
- Wright v. City of Roanoke Redev. & Hous. Auth., 479 U.S. 418 (1987) (Brooke Amendment rent-ceiling creates enforceable right under §1983)
- Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273 (2002) (framework for determining when statutes create rights enforceable under §1983)
- Johnson v. Hous. Auth. of Jefferson Par., 442 F.3d 356 (5th Cir. 2006) (applied Wright to Section 8 utilities allowance context)
- Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997) (agency interpretations of its own regulations may receive deference, but deference to local agencies is limited)
- Thiboutot v. Maine, 448 U.S. 1 (1980) (§1983 can be used to enforce certain federal statutory rights)