McClarty v. Greene Metropolitan Housing Authority
963 N.E.2d 182
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- McClarty is a single mother of three participating in HUD’s Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program administered by GMHA.
- Her utilities assistance under the program is based on income; she receives subsidies calculated from her reported income and household size.
- In 2008 McClarty notified GMHA that child support payments had ceased, which caused GMHA to increase utility bill assistance.
- In March 2010 GMHA learned, from another source, that child-support payments had resumed in February 2009 and that McClarty had not reported this to GMHA.
- GMHA terminated McClarty’s voucher assistance effective April 30, 2010 and required repayment of a $1,020 overpayment.
- The trial court (common pleas) affirmed GMHA’s termination; McClarty appealed under R.C. 2506.04, challenging the termination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination requires intent to deceive | McClarty argues no intentional deception shown | GMHA argues fraud/intent to deceive or misreporting justifies termination | Remanded for factual determination on intent; termination reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- Henley v. Youngstown Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 90 Ohio St.3d 142 (2000) (standard of review in R.C. 2506.04 appeals (scope of review))
- Kisil v. Sandusky, 12 Ohio St.3d 30 (1984) (limited scope of appellate review in administrative appeals)
- Smith v. Hamilton Cty., 2007-Ohio-1725 (Ohio) (cannot terminate for minor errors without proof of family obligation violation or fraud)
- Ellis v. Ritchie, 803 F. Supp. 1097 (E.D. Va. 1992) (discussion supporting need to distinguish intentional vs. unintentional misreporting)
- Boesch v. Guarantee Title & Trust Co., 18 Ohio Law Abs. 655 (1935) (definition of fraud and reliance in misrepresentation cases)