Peterson v. Washington County Housing & Redevelopment Authority
2011 Minn. App. LEXIS 108
Minn. Ct. App.2011Background
- Peterson, an unemployed single mother of four, received HUD Section 8 housing assistance administered by Washington County HRA for eight years.
- HRA policy required reporting any change in household income in writing within five days of the change.
- Peterson recertified in June 2010 and acknowledged the five-day reporting obligation.
- In July 2010 she initially reported no income, while MFIP income was later evidenced in August 2010 lease paperwork.
- HRA terminated housing assistance after discovering unreported MFIP income; Peterson challenged at a formal hearing and via writ of certiorari.
- The court held federal law authorizes the five-day reporting rule and permits termination for noncompliance; mitigating factors need not be considered.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the five-day reporting rule is federally authorized | Peterson argues the rule exceeds federal authority | HRA contends federal law permits local reporting deadlines | Rule is federally authorized |
| Whether termination was supported by findings, evidence, and rationale | Peterson argues lack of required findings and substantial evidence | HRA asserts sufficient evidence and proper rationale | Termination supported by substantial evidence and valid reasoning |
Key Cases Cited
- Carter v. Olmsted Cnty. Hous. & Redev. Auth., 574 N.W.2d 725 (Minn.App. 1998) (standard of review for housing decisions; sufficiency of process)
- Rostamkhani v. City of St. Paul, 645 N.W.2d 479 (Minn.App. 2002) (mitigating factors not mandatory; factual review requires reasonableness)