Background

• King began receiving housing vouchers under HCVP in November 2006 and signed a guest policy agreeing not to house unauthorized individuals without AMHA approval.
• HCVP defines an unauthorized household member as anyone staying more than four consecutive days or totaling 15 days in 12 months.
• In early 2009 AMHA notified King that her benefits were in jeopardy for allegedly violating the guest policy, leading to a hearing on April 22, 2009.
• The AMHA hearing officer found a violation and terminated King’s HCVP participation; King appealed to Summit County Court of Common Pleas.
• The trial court granted AMHA’s motion to strike King’s additional materials filed with a reply brief, limiting review to the administrative record.
• Evidence at the AMHA hearing showed Gaines resided at King’s unit at least weekly since 2007; King admitted Gaines stayed overnight and remained on the unit’s premises.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• Sherlock v. Myers, 2004-Ohio-5178 (9th Dist., 2004) (liberal construction for pro se filings; same standards apply as represented parties)
• Stace Development, Inc. v. Wellington Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 2005-Ohio-4798 (9th Dist., 2005) (allows supplementation of record when transcript is incomplete under R.C. 2506.03)
• Kisil v. Sandusky, 12 Ohio St.3d 30 (Ohio Sup. Ct., 1984) (appellate review limited; cannot substitute own fact-finding)
• Henley v. Youngstown Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 90 Ohio St.3d 142 (Ohio Sup. Ct., 2000) (clarifies standard of review for administrative appeals)
• Summit Cty. v. Stoll, 2007-Ohio-2887 (9th Dist., 2007) (applies framework for reviewing administrative agency decisions)