Tolliver v. Housing Authority of the County of Cook
2017 IL App (1st) 153615
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Tolliver participated in the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program through HACC since 2007; she was required to report income increases in writing within 30 days.
- HACC issued termination notices (2012 and later) alleging Tolliver failed to report income from Diamond Detective Agency across multiple years (initial letters lacked dates or amounts).
- Tolliver contested the termination at administrative hearings; the hearing officer upheld termination and assessed an alleged overpayment (later quantified as ~$13,586).
- The circuit court twice remanded for HACC to consider mitigating circumstances and later found HACC’s proposed repayment plan unreasonable; HACC revised repayment terms to $13,488 payable over 36 months without an up-front lump sum.
- On certiorari review the appellate court found HACC’s initial notices constitutionally deficient, HACC failed to perform mandatory interim reexaminations for zero-income reports, and the repayment plan was an excessive sanction; the court reversed, ordered immediate reinstatement of the voucher, and remanded to determine any overpayments and a reasonable repayment plan.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether HACC provided constitutionally adequate pretermination notice under Goldberg and HUD regs | Tolliver: notices were too vague (no dates, amounts, calculations); prevented meaningful defense | HACC: Tolliver nevertheless was prepared at hearings and could present a defense | Held: Notices were constitutionally insufficient; due process violated because tenant could not prepare rebuttal without specific allegations/data |
| Whether HACC violated HUD regs and its administrative plan by failing to conduct interim reexaminations for reported zero/unstable income | Tolliver: she repeatedly reported zero/unstable income; HACC had duty to do 90‑day interim reexams which it did not do | HACC: interim reexams are discretionary or may have occurred (burden on Tolliver to disprove) | Held: HACC failed to follow mandatory interim reexamination requirements in these circumstances; agency cannot shift burden to tenant to prove a reexam did not occur |
| Whether the repayment plan imposed was reasonable and lawful | Tolliver: proposed repayment (initially required large up-front payment; later $13,488 over 36 months) was unaffordable and punitive given income and HACC’s own failures | HACC: repayment requirement justified by alleged overpayments | Held: Repayment plan was unreasonable/abusive of discretion (would require ~60% of monthly gross income); agency abused discretion and sanction was overly harsh |
| Appropriate remedy and scope of remand | Tolliver: immediate reinstatement and a hearing to calculate any legitimate overpayment with reasonable repayment terms | HACC: (sought termination to recoup overpayments) | Held: Court ordered voucher reinstated immediately; remanded to hearing officer to determine any overpayments and, if repayment required, to craft a plan reflecting ability to pay and reasonableness |
Key Cases Cited
- Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (U.S. 1970) (establishes procedural due process requirements for pretermination welfare-type hearings)
- Khan v. Bland, 630 F.3d 519 (7th Cir. 2010) (describes the Section 8/HCV regulatory framework)
- Samirah v. Holder, 627 F.3d 652 (7th Cir. 2010) (agency rules are controlling on the agency and must be followed)