213 A.3d 1275
D.C.2019Background
- Gail Williams received Housing Choice Voucher Program (HCVP) subsidies from the District of Columbia Housing Authority (DCHA). DCHA sought termination based on multiple 2016 recommendations alleging nonpayment, disturbance/criminal activity, and unauthorized occupants/guest stays.
- Two informal hearings occurred (Nov. 2016; Feb./Apr. 2017). The June 2017 hearing decision denied termination for criminal activity and for unauthorized residence by multiple individuals, but found by preponderance that a non-household member, Burdette Campbell, violated the guest-stay rule (14 DCMR § 5320.1).
- The June 2017 decision was not timely mailed to Williams; she first received it on July 28, 2017. After procedural remand and an agency finding that notice was untimely, Williams’s August 28, 2017 petition to this court was treated as timely.
- The hearing officer’s factual findings about Campbell: he lived elsewhere; visited several times weekly; sometimes stayed overnight; received mail and parked vehicles at Williams’s address; mowed her lawn and had a close personal relationship with Williams.
- The court concluded the hearing officer exceeded the scope of issues noticed at the informal hearing by deciding the guest-stay claim (a ground not in the termination recommendations) and, even if proper, found the evidence insufficient to show Campbell stayed 30+ consecutive nights or 90+ cumulative nights in a year.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DCHA timely notified Williams of the June 2017 decision for purposes of appellate timeliness | Williams: she did not receive the June 2017 decision until late July 2017 so her August 28 petition is timely | DCHA initially represented the decision was mailed timely; after remand DCHA conceded no timely mailing | Court: DCHA failed to timely notify; Williams’s petition is timely under court rules |
| Whether the hearing officer could decide a guest-stay violation not listed in the termination notices | Williams: she lacked notice; guest-stay issue was not one of the recommended termination grounds | DCHA: argued guest-stay was implicated and was referenced at hearing | Court: Hearing officer exceeded 14 DCMR § 8904.4(a); issue was outside the scope of noticed issues |
| Whether the evidence supported a finding that Campbell stayed 30 consecutive days or 90 days in a year | Williams: factual record does not prove the required duration of overnight stays | DCHA: pointed to frequent visits, overnight instances, vehicles registered at address, mail, and close relationship as evidence of residency | Court: Evidence did not prove the requisite 30/90-day threshold; contacts are insufficient to show statutory guest-stay violation |
| Whether the termination decision was supported by substantial evidence and rational legal conclusions | Williams: termination not supported; violation finding does not flow from findings | DCHA: termination was warranted based on guest-stay finding | Court: Decision not supported by substantial evidence and conclusions did not rationally follow findings; reversal and reinstatement ordered |
Key Cases Cited
- Mathis v. District of Columbia Hous. Auth., 124 A.3d 1089 (explains HCVP background and deference in agency factual findings)
- Bostic v. District of Columbia Hous. Auth., 162 A.3d 170 (context on local administration of HUD-funded HCVP)
- Powell v. District of Columbia Hous. Auth., 818 A.2d 188 (standard for agency findings and due process in termination proceedings)
- Proulx v. Police & Firemen’s Ret. & Relief Bd., 430 A.2d 34 (review of administrative record as a whole)
- Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (due process principles for termination of public benefits)