T.A. VS. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, DIVISION OF HOUSING (DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, DIVISION OF HOUSING), A-1681-15T2

Background

Petitioner T.A. participated in the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program for 14 years and recertified annually.
At a December 2013 recertification, T.A. and her two adult daughters signed statements certifying zero household income.
Department verification revealed T.A.’s daughters earned over $19,000 in 2012–2013, leading to $7,002 in overpaid subsidies across two recertification periods.
The Department terminated T.A.’s Section 8 assistance in March 2014; T.A. admitted the earnings and the overpayment but claimed she was unaware her daughters worked.
T.A. sought an "accommodation" based on depression after multiple family deaths; medical support was minimal and largely post-dated the relevant employment period.
The ALJ found T.A.’s lack-of-knowledge claim not credible, denied an accommodation, and affirmed termination; the agency decision became final and the Appellate Division affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether termination of Section 8 benefits was proper for false income certifications	T.A. acknowledged false certifications but argued she was unaware her daughters worked and therefore should not be terminated	Department argued petitioner falsely certified household income and termination is warranted under federal/state rules	Held: Termination affirmed; ALJ’s credibility finding supported record and false statements warranted termination
Whether petitioner was entitled to an accommodation for depression	T.A. argued her depression excused or mitigated failure to report income and sought continuation of benefits plus repayment plan	Department argued no timely accommodation request was made, medical evidence was weak or post-dated the misconduct, and accommodation does not excuse false reporting	Held: Denial of accommodation upheld; request raised late, evidence insufficient, and condition did not justify nondisclosure
Whether petitioner qualified for a HUD repayment plan for the overpayment	T.A. asked for an installment plan to repay $7,002	Department explained HUD constraints and a practical $3,000 cap for repayable amounts within 36 months under income-based limits	Held: Repayment plan not available because the overpayment exceeded the practical HUD cap and regulatory repayment limits
Whether ALJ’s reliance on state S-RAP rules (in addition to Section 8 regs) invalidated the decision	T.A. argued the ALJ relied on inapplicable state regulations	Department pointed out state regulations mirror federal Section 8 rules and petitioner admitted violating Section 8 reporting requirements	Held: Any reference to S-RAP was harmless error because Section 8 violations were undisputed and controlling

Key Cases Cited

Newman v. Ramapo Coll. of N.J., 349 N.J. Super. 196 (App. Div.) (procedure for deemed adoption of agency decisions)
In re Herrmann, 192 N.J. 19 (2007) (standard of appellate review of agency factfinding)
In re Taylor, 158 N.J. 644 (1999) (appellate court defers to agency factual findings when supported by substantial credible evidence)
175 Exec. House, L.L.C. v. Miles, 449 N.J. Super. 197 (App. Div.) (state rental-assistance regulations mirror federal Section 8 rules)