Matthews v. Housing Auth. Balto. City
216 Md. App. 572
| Md. Ct. Spec. App. | 2014Background
- Darlene Matthews participated in HABC’s Housing Choice Voucher Program (HCVP) since 2004; she and her husband Gerald separated in 2002 and reconciled in late 2011.
- On December 6, 2011 Darlene requested that Gerald be added to her voucher and he signed forms that triggered background checks.
- HABC discovered prior public records showing Gerald had listed 3221 Esther Place (Darlene’s subsidized unit) as his address on three occasions between 2004 and 2011.
- HABC issued a termination notice (Apr. 4, 2012) alleging unauthorized occupant/failure to report change in household composition; an informal hearing upheld termination.
- At the hearing Gerald and Darlene testified he used her address to receive mail (child support, VA, SSA) while actually residing intermittently with various family members; HABC produced only printouts showing the address usage.
- The hearing officer relied on HABC’s Visitor Policy (use of unit address as residence for non‑temporary purposes = permanent residence) to conclude Gerald was an unauthorized household member; the circuit court affirmed and Matthews appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether HABC may terminate participation for a non-household member’s use of the unit address for mail | Matthews: mere use of the address for mailing does not show physical residency or violation; no Plan provision bars mailing‑address use | HABC: listing the unit as a primary residence / using the unit address constitutes residence under Visitor Policy and supports termination | Reversed: HABC’s Plan did not prohibit a non‑household member from using the unit as a mailing address; address use alone does not prove physical residency or violation |
| Whether Hearing Officer properly applied Visitor Policy to deem Gerald an unauthorized occupant | Matthews: Visitor Policy applies only if visitor was physically in the unit (14 consecutive days or 90 days/12 months); HABC never proved physical presence | HABC: Policy’s clause construing use of unit address as permanent residence supports finding of unauthorized occupancy | Reversed: Hearing Officer erred by applying only part of the Visitor Policy without finding Gerald had been "in the unit" as required by the Policy |
| Whether circuit court’s judgment is appealable to this Court | Matthews: administrative mandamus/common‑law mandamus is reviewable under §12‑301; appeal is proper | HABC: CJP §12‑302(a) bars appeals from circuit court appellate‑jurisdiction reviews (claims this was statutory review) | Matthews: Court of Special Appeals has jurisdiction; administrative mandamus is reviewable; appeal allowed |
| Whether HABC’s termination was supported by substantial evidence | Matthews: record lacks proof of physical residency—only mailing address evidence | HABC: Judiciary Case Search printouts and testimony supported conclusion Gerald used the address as his residence | Reversed: substantial evidence lacking—reasonable mind could not conclude physical residency from mailing‑address evidence alone |
Key Cases Cited
- Madison Park N. Apartments, L.P. v. Comm’r of Hous. & Cmty. Dev., 211 Md. App. 676 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2013) (administrative mandamus and appealsable common‑law mandamus distinguished from statutory judicial review)
- Driver v. Housing Auth. of Racine County, 713 N.W.2d 670 (Wis. Ct. App. 2006) (terminations based solely on non‑household members “using the address” cannot be grounded in agency policy absent a regulatory or policy basis)
- Dvorak v. Anne Arundel Cnty. Ethics Comm’n, 400 Md. 446 (Md. 2007) (discusses limits on appellate jurisdiction where circuit court acted in statutory appellate capacity)
- Rogers v. Eastport Yachting Ctr., LLC, 408 Md. 722 (Md. 2009) (distinguishing statutory judicial review from mandamus for purposes of appellate jurisdiction)