Walker v. Department of Housing & Community Development, 29 A.3d 293

Appellant Tonya Walker faced termination of housing assistance under Maryland's Section 8 program administered by the Department of Housing and Community Development (the Department).
Walker attended an informal, Department-appointed hearing officer hearing, where evidence and testimony were presented regarding alleged violations of family obligations and related overpayments.
The Department alleged two grounds: failure to provide unit inspections and failure to enter into a repayment agreement for overpayments tied to unreported Social Security benefits for her children.
The formal pre-termination hearing was conducted under federal regulations (24 C.F.R. § 982.555) and the Department’s Administrative Plan, not under Maryland’s APA contested case procedures.
Walker sought judicial review, arguing the informal hearing should have been conducted as a Maryland APA contested case; the circuit court denied this, and the case progressed to the Court of Special Appeals via certiorari.
The Court ultimately held that the Department was required to provide a contested case hearing under the Maryland APA, and the prior informal hearing did not satisfy contested case requirements, remanding for proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does the Maryland APA apply to termination hearings for HCVP participants?	Walker contends APA applies because termination implicates a statutorily/constitutionally protected entitlement.	Department argues APA does not apply because the pre-termination hearing is required by regulation, not statute or due process.	APA governs and applies to the termination hearing.
Is the pre-termination hearing governed by due process, not just regulation, and thus a contested case under the APA?	Due process requires a pre-termination hearing; thus it fits within the contested case definition.	Due process alone does not convert the hearing into a contested case; it is merely an informal regulatory hearing.	Due process requires a pre-termination hearing that qualifies as a contested case under the APA.
Was the HCVP pre-termination hearing conducted in accordance with contested case requirements of the APA?	The hearing failed to provide proper findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a complete record.	The hearing complied with applicable due process and federal regulations; the APA standards do not apply to this informal process.	The hearing did not meet contested case standards; remand for a proper contested case proceeding is required.

Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970) (due process requires a pre-termination hearing for public assistance benefits)
Sugarloaf Citizens Ass’n v. Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal Auth., 323 Md. 641 (1991) (contested case analysis and interplay with APA when hearings are required by regulation)
Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. United Steelworkers, 298 Md. 665 (1984) (judicial review requires a developed record with findings of fact and rationale)
Bouie v. New Jersey Department of Community Affairs, 972 A.2d 401 (N.J. Super. 2009) (housing benefits termination hearing as a contested case under state APA)
Aguiar v. Hawaii Housing Authority, 522 P.2d 1255 (Haw. 1974) (due process requires a pre-termination hearing for housing assistance)