95 F. Supp. 3d 35
D. Mass.2015Background
- DeCambre is a disabled Section 8 (Housing Choice Voucher) participant in Brookline, Massachusetts.
- She established an irrevocable Special Needs Trust funded by lump-sum personal injury settlements (~$330,000) for her benefit; trustee is her attorney, J. Whitfield Larrabee.
- The Brookline Housing Authority (BHA) calculated DeCambre’s income for Section 8 by counting trust disbursements, excluding lump-sum portions, and reduced or terminated her rental assistance.
- DeCambre requested reasonable accommodations excluding trust disbursements from income; informal hearing occurred; Baronas issued a decision holding trust distributions are income.
- The court held HUD regulations support treating trust disbursements as income where distributed from an irrevocable trust; denied DeCambre’s §1983 and due process claims; denied preliminary injunction; remanded to BHA for further consideration on certain medical-expenditure claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are trust disbursements countable income under HUD rules? | DeCambre argues settlement funds in an irrevocable SNT should be excluded from annual income. | BHA treated SNT distributions as income under 5.603(b)(2) and 5.609, a reasonable interpretation. | Yes, trust disbursements can be income; BHA’s treatment upheld. |
| Did BHA violate due process by the income calculation or accommodations process? | Denial of income-relief and inadequate rationale for accommodations harmed due process. | Notice, hearing, and decision provided; decisions supported by record. | No procedural due process violation; no substantive due process violation found. |
| Was there disability-based discrimination under the ADA/FDCPA/FHA? | Disability status affected eligibility and benefits. | Record shows no proof of discriminatory intent or effect beyond regulatory interpretation. | Discrimination claims fail; no evidence of unlawful discriminatory denial. |
| Should the preliminary injunction be granted to resume Section 8 payments? | Injunctive relief to restore payments is warranted pending reconsideration. | Main claims fail on merits; no irreparable harm shown. | Denied; case remanded to BHA for further proceedings on exclusions. |
| Do HUD advisory letters/handbooks support excluding SNT assets from income? | Advisory guidance supports excluding SNT expenditures from income. | Advisory materials are non-binding and not controlling; regulation governs. | Advisory materials insufficient to compel exclusion; not adopted as controlling rule. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wright v. City of Roanoke Redev. & Hous. Auth., 479 U.S. 418 (U.S. 1987) (public housing authorities may be liable under §1983)
- Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (U.S. 1970) (procedural due process requirements in public assistance)
- Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21 (U.S. 1991) (official-capacity suits; personal liability considerations)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (U.S. 1982) (qualified immunity standard for public officials)