931 N.W.2d 107
Minn. Ct. App.2019Background
- Relator Cindi Ali participates in the federal Section 8 housing voucher program administered by Scott County; eligibility depends on "annual income" under 24 C.F.R. § 5.609.
- Ali also received $73,248.20 (2017–2018) from Minnesota's Consumer Directed Community Support (CDCS) program to keep her developmentally disabled child at home.
- Ali allocated part of the CDCS budget to pay herself $16.75/hr for ~36.75 hrs/week (annual ~$32,009) for caregiving; other funds paid third‑party respite/support staff.
- Scott County excluded the non‑parent CDCS payments under 24 C.F.R. § 5.609(c)(16) but included the parent‑allocated portion as annual income; Ali sought an informal hearing and lost.
- After the hearing, the hearing officer consulted a CDCS worker for clarification; Ali alleged a due‑process violation but did not claim any resulting prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether parent‑allocated CDCS payments are excluded from "annual income" under 24 C.F.R. § 5.609(c)(16) | Ali: The parent‑allocated payments offset her opportunity cost of caregiving and thus are excluded as "costs" to keep the disabled member at home. | Scott County: The exclusion covers amounts that offset monetary expenditures for services/equipment; parent‑allocated payments do not offset any family expenditure and are income. | Court: The regulation is unambiguous; "cost" means a monetary expenditure. Parent‑allocated payments are not excluded and count as annual income. |
| Whether the hearing officer’s post‑hearing consultation violated Ali’s procedural due process and requires reversal | Ali: The off‑record consultation violated due process. | Scott County: Even if procedural error occurred, Ali suffered no prejudice from it. | Court: No reversible due‑process error because Ali did not demonstrate any prejudice; decision rests on legal interpretation, not the extra information. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Reichmann Land & Cattle, LLP, 867 N.W.2d 502 (Minn. 2015) (statutory/regulatory interpretation rules and give effect to all provisions)
- Peterson v. Wash. Cty. Hous. & Redevelopment Auth., 805 N.W.2d 558 (Minn. App. 2011) (de novo review of housing authority interpretation of federal regulation)
- Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970) (welfare‑benefit termination implicates procedural due process)
- In re Child of B.J.-M., 744 N.W.2d 669 (Minn. 2008) (prejudice is essential to due‑process error analysis)
- Wilbur v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 892 N.W.2d 521 (Minn. 2017) (same‑word usage in a statute/regulation should have consistent meaning)