Rodriguez v. Chicago Housing Authority
35 N.E.3d 1258
Ill. App. Ct.2015Background
- Petitioner Maribely Rodriguez received a Housing Choice Voucher from the Chicago Housing Authority (CHA) and listed her son, Carlos Rivera, as a household member on her application and voucher.
- Rivera allegedly moved out of the subsidized unit in late January 2013; Rodriguez testified she knew by his 18th birthday (April 20, 2013) he would not return.
- Rivera was arrested on August 12, 2013, and charged with murder on August 13, 2013.
- Rodriguez submitted an Out of Household Declaration on August 14, 2013 (received Aug. 15) removing Rivera; CHA amended the HAP contract on Aug. 28, 2013 to remove him.
- CHA issued an amended notice to terminate Rodriguez for (1) failing to notify CHA within 10 days of Rivera’s arrest and (2) failing to promptly notify CHA that Rivera no longer lived in the unit; an informal hearing upheld both violations and terminated her participation.
- The circuit court denied certiorari; Rodriguez appealed to the Appellate Court, which reviewed the CHA decision de novo under the clearly erroneous standard for mixed questions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Rodriguez) | Defendant's Argument (CHA) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rodriguez was required to report Rivera’s arrest | Rivera was not a household member at time of arrest, so no duty to report | Rivera remained a household member until CHA removed him from the voucher, so duty to report his arrest within 10 days | Held for Rodriguez: court found it clearly erroneous to treat Rivera as a household member on date of arrest; Rodriguez had no obligation to report the arrest |
| Whether Rodriguez failed to promptly notify CHA that Rivera ceased residing in the unit | August 15, 2013 notice meant CHA waived any late-notice claim; CHA’s subsequent amendment mooted timeliness | Rodriguez failed to notify within CHA’s 30-day prompt-notice rule after she knew by April 20, 2013 — therefore report was untimely | Held for CHA on this point: Rodriguez violated the prompt-notice obligation by May 20, 2013 and did not timely notify CHA |
| Whether CHA properly relied on voucher status (removal date) to define household membership | Household membership is defined by actual residence and expectation of return, not voucher paperwork | The removal from the voucher controls membership status until CHA amends the HAP contract | Held for Rodriguez: court held definitions and HUD/CHA rules show household membership is tied to residence, not administrative removal date |
| Appropriate remedy and next steps | Vacate termination and remand for reconsideration only on mitigation/sanction for untimely notice | Affirm entire termination based on both violations | Court vacated the termination, affirmed finding of untimely notice, reversed finding re: arrest-reporting, and remanded to CHA to determine sanction under its plan |
Key Cases Cited
- Outcom, Inc. v. Illinois Department of Transportation, 233 Ill. 2d 324 (2009) (common-law certiorari is proper vehicle for reviewing CHA decisions)
- City of Belvidere v. Illinois State Labor Relations Board, 181 Ill. 2d 191 (1998) (mixed questions of fact and law reviewed under clearly erroneous standard)
- Hanrahan v. Williams, 174 Ill. 2d 268 (1996) (standards of review discussed for administrative decisions)
- Dubin v. Personnel Board, 128 Ill. 2d 490 (1989) (circuit court’s review power on certiorari parallels Administrative Review Law)