Tolliver v. Housing Authority of the County of Cook
2017 Ill. App. LEXIS 334
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Tolliver participated in the HUD Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Program since 2007; HACC administered her voucher and alleged she failed to timely report increased income from Diamond Detective Agency.
- HACC sent termination notices (first in Oct 2012, later notices covering 2009–2012) lacking specific dates, amounts, or calculation data for alleged overpayments; first hearing found termination justified.
- Tolliver challenged the termination via writ of certiorari; circuit court remanded multiple times directing HACC to consider mitigating circumstances and find a reasonable remedy.
- HACC ultimately offered a repayment plan requiring $13,586 (later $13,488) to be repaid over 36 months; earlier drafts demanded a large up-front lump sum.
- Circuit court ultimately affirmed HACC’s termination; on appeal the Illinois Appellate Court reversed, finding constitutional and administrative violations and ordering immediate reinstatement and remand to determine any overpayments and, if necessary, a reasonable repayment plan.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Tolliver) | Defendant's Argument (HACC) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of termination notice | Notices were too vague (no dates, amounts, calculations) so she lacked fair notice to prepare defense | She was able to present at hearings; thus notice was sufficient | Notices were constitutionally deficient; due process requires more specific written notice before termination |
| Duty to conduct interim reexaminations | HACC failed to perform mandatory 90‑day interim reexaminations after reports of zero/unstable income, violating HUD rules and HACC plan | Interim reexaminations are discretionary and no record establishes they were omitted | HACC violated its own administrative plan and HUD rules by failing mandatory interim reexaminations for zero‑income reporting, causing overpayments to accumulate |
| Burden to prove whether reexaminations occurred | HACC cannot shift burden to Tolliver to prove a negative (that no reexamination occurred) | HACC argued absence of record does not prove failure to reexamine | Court rejected HACC’s burden‑shifting; HUD rules protect tenants from bearing that proof burden |
| Reasonableness of repayment plan/sanction | Repayment demand (>$13k; $374.67/mo) is unreasonable given her income (~$15k/yr) and HACC’s own failures; it is tantamount to de facto termination | HACC maintained repayment plan appropriate to recoup alleged overpayments | Court found repayment plan an abuse of discretion/overly harsh; required consideration of ability to pay and remanded to craft reasonable plan |
Key Cases Cited
- Khan v. Bland, 630 F.3d 519 (7th Cir.) (describing HUD Section 8 program and PHA role)
- Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (U.S.) (procedural due process requirements for pretermination welfare hearings)
- Samirah v. Holder, 627 F.3d 652 (7th Cir.) (federal agency rules binding on agency)
- Edgecomb v. Housing Authority, 824 F. Supp. 312 (D. Conn.) (notice must be specific enough to allow rebuttal at hearing)