L. Allen v. City of Philadelphia
764 C.D. 2021
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Jun 10, 2022Background
- Allen is a PHA tenant facing biennial lease recertification; she disputed scheduling and later alleged improper conduct by a PHA property manager during recertification.
- PHA flagged a failure to complete community service and requested forms; HUD later issued a COVID-19 community service waiver and no community service was imposed.
- PHA issued rent-increase and lease-termination notices based on missing unemployment documentation, but verified Allen had no unemployment income and rescinded increases and termination notices; Allen was never charged increased rent.
- Allen filed a grievance seeking an ALJ hearing about the manager’s conduct; the ALJ limited the grievance to rent/recertification matters and declined jurisdiction over purely interpersonal disputes, ultimately denying relief because no recertification relief remained outstanding.
- On appeal Allen filed a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Statement 14 days late after counsel withdrew and after filing a timely motion for extension; the trial court deemed the Statement untimely and issues waived but nonetheless addressed and affirmed the ALJ.
- This Court (1) found the extension motion was facially timely and the trial court should have assessed good cause (but, exercising judicial economy, treated the Statement as timely) and (2) affirmed on the merits because PHA’s grievance process does not cover interpersonal complaints and all recertification issues had been resolved.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Statement / waiver | Allen: she timely sought an extension after counsel withdrew; court should have considered good cause and not find waiver | PHA / lower court: Statement was filed late; untimely 1925(b) results in automatic waiver of issues | Court: motion for extension was facially timely and lower court should have considered good cause, but for judicial economy treated Statement as timely; any timeliness error was harmless. |
| ALJ jurisdiction to adjudicate interpersonal complaints during a grievance under 24 C.F.R. § 966.53 | Allen: ALJ erred by refusing to consider allegations about manager misconduct during recertification | PHA: grievance procedure covers lease/regulatory disputes; interpersonal disputes are not cognizable; moreover recertification issues were resolved | Court: interpersonal complaints are not proper matters under the grievance regulation; because PHA had resolved the recertification issues, nothing remained to adjudicate—affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Greater Erie Indus. Dev. Corp. v. Presque Isle Downs, Inc., 88 A.3d 222 (Pa. Super. 2014) (untimely Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement results in waiver)
- Jenkins v. Fayette Cnty. Tax Bureau, 176 A.3d 1038 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018) (Rule 1925(b) waiver principle and bright-line consequences)
- Commonwealth v. Hopfer, 965 A.2d 270 (Pa. Super. 2009) (when appellant timely files for enlargement, court must explain why good cause was not shown before denying)
- Cox v. Johnstown Hous. Auth., 212 A.3d 572 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2019) (standard of appellate review of common pleas' order)