Krisha Bowman v. City of Des Moines Municipal Housing Agency Scott Littell in His Official Capacity as Review Officer and Sara Henry, in Her Official Capacity as Occupancy and Program Enforcement Administrator
805 N.W.2d 790
Iowa2011Background
- Bowman appeals district court dismissal of certiorari challenging termination of her Section 8 housing assistance by DMMHA.
- DMMHA terminated for five alleged unreported-income occurrences; four were from child Social Security benefits, one from FIP benefits.
- DMMHA policy in 2008 allows four occurrences before termination; Bowman had three children, three separate SSA benefit letters.
- Bowman disclosed one set of income changes (lost job, FIP) in June 2009 and later reported SSA for the children; she claimed unawareness of reporting SSA for children.
- Hearing officer upheld termination citing knowledge of reporting obligations; district court affirmed substantial-evidence grounds and non-mandatory mitigation considerations.
- Bowman challenges on substantial-evidence, Fair Housing Act disparate-impact grounds, and mitigation-factor consideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the five unreported-income occurrences were supported by substantial evidence | Bowman argues only four occurrences occurred or that three SSA items should be combined. | DMMHA treated each SSA payment as a separate occurrence and considers FIP as an additional occurrence. | Supported by substantial evidence. |
| Whether DMMHA’s four-occurrence policy violates the Fair Housing Act | Policy discriminates based on familial status by penalizing larger families. | Policy applies uniformly; any disparate impact is not shown; larger families have more potential occurrences but not disproportionate impact. | No FHAct violation. |
| Whether the hearing officer was required to consider mitigating circumstances | Regulation requires mandatory consideration of mitigating factors due to illness and long record. | Regulation permissively allows consideration; not mandatory to weigh mitigating factors in every case. | discretionary, not mandatory; no error in not expressly enumerating mitigation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Horizon Homes of Davenport v. Nunn, 684 N.W.2d 221 (Iowa 2004) (describes Section 8 framework and voucher context)
- Meier v. Senecaut, 641 N.W.2d 532 (Iowa 2002) (appellate standard and review framework for certiorari)
- Bontrager Auto Serv., Inc. v. Iowa City Bd. of Adjustment, 748 N.W.2d 483 (Iowa 2008) (substantial-evidence review and agency action standards)
- Carter v. Lynn Hous. Auth., 880 N.E.2d 778 (Mass. 2008) (mitigating factors considerations; discretionary reasoning under HUD regs)
- Peter son v. Washington County and Redevelopment Authority, 805 N.W.2d 558 (Minn. Ct. App. 2011) (hearing officer discretion to consider mitigating factors under § 982.552(c)(2)(i))
- Mt. Holly Gardens Citizens in Action, Inc. v. Twp. of Mount Holly, 658 F.3d 375 (3d Cir. 2011) (disparate-impact framework in housing law)