Bowman v. City of Des Moines Mun. Hous. Agency

• Decision Date: 04 November 2011
• Docket Number: No. 10–1885.,10–1885.
• Citation: 805 N.W.2d 790
• Parties: Krisha BOWMAN, Appellant, v. CITY OF DES MOINES MUNICIPAL HOUSING AGENCY; Scott Littell in his Official Capacity as Review Officer and Sara Henry, in her Official Capacity as Occupancy and Program Enforcement Administrator, Appellees.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

805 N.W.2d 790

Krisha BOWMAN, Appellant,

v.CITY OF DES MOINES MUNICIPAL HOUSING AGENCY; Scott Littell in his Official Capacity as Review Officer and Sara Henry, in her Official Capacity as Occupancy and Program Enforcement Administrator, Appellees.

No. 10–1885.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Nov. 4, 2011.

Justin J. Gross of Iowa Legal Aid, Des Moines, for appellant.

Gary D. Goudelock, Jr., Assistant City Attorney, Des Moines, for appellees.

MANSFIELD, Justice.

Krisha Bowman appeals the district court's dismissal of her certiorari action challenging the termination of her Section 8 housing assistance by the Des Moines Municipal Housing Agency (DMMHA). DMMHA discontinued Bowman's housing assistance based on five alleged occurrences of unreported income. Bowman argues that she did not have five such occurrences; that even if she did, DMMHA's policy of treating a failure to report each child's Social Security benefits as a separate occurrence of unreported income violates the Fair Housing Act; and that DMMHA improperly failed to consider mitigating circumstances before terminating her assistance.

We conclude: DMMHA's determination that Bowman had five occurrences of unreported income is supported by substantial evidence, DMMHA's policy does not violate the Fair Housing Act, and DMMHA did not improperly fail to consider Bowman's mitigating circumstances. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court denying Bowman's petition for writ of certiorari.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings.

In 1974, Congress enacted a housing assistance program commonly known as the “Section 8” program. See 42 U.S.C. § 1437f (2006). Under this program, federal dollars are used to fund both project-based and tenant-based housing assistance for low-income families. See Horizon Homes of Davenport v. Nunn, 684 N.W.2d 221, 222–23 (Iowa 2004) (describing the Section 8 program). This case involves tenant-based assistance in the form of rental vouchers. See 42 U.S.C. § 1437f( o). Although the funding comes from the federal government, the program is administered on a local basis by public housing authorities (PHA), such as DMMHA.

A low-income family may apply to the PHA and, if approved, receive a voucher from the PHA to cover a portion of their rent. See 24 C.F.R. §§ 982.302, 982.305 (2010). Under certain circumstances, however, Section 8 voucher assistance may or even must be terminated. See id. § 982.552. One of the permissive grounds for termination is when the family violates any “family obligations.” Id. § 982.552(c)(1)(i). A specific family obligation is to supply any information the PHA determines is necessary in the administration of the program. Id. § 982.551(b)(1). Additionally, the family must supply any information requested by the PHA for use in a regularly scheduled or interim reexamination of family income. Id. § 982.551(b)(2).

DMMHA requires Section 8 participants in Des Moines to sign a two-page “Statement of Family/Household Obligations.” Among other things, the participant certifies that he or she will report to the case manager in writing within ten days “any increase or decrease or change of the source of household income.” The participant also acknowledges that his or her housing assistance may be terminated for a violation of any family obligation in the program.

In 2008, the Des Moines Municipal Housing Board approved DMMHA's proposed revision of its policy on processing instances of unreported income “to better define for their clients and staff how unreported income will be calculated.” The new policy stated, “The family will be afforded a total of four (4) occurrences of unreported income. More than four (4) occurrences of unreported income is grounds for termination of benefits.” DMMHA adopted this four-occurrence policy to replace a previous policy that allowed only one occurrence before termination.

Krisha Bowman, a single mother, resides in Des Moines with her three minor children. Bowman began participating in the Section 8 housing program in approximately 2000. In the ensuing years, she continued to participate in the program and signed a number of “Statement[s] of Family/Household Obligations” referring to her obligation to report changes in the amount or source of household income. There is no indication that Bowman ever violated the terms of her Section 8 housing assistance before 2009.

Bowman suffers from multiple sclerosis, and on February 2, 2009, she had to quit her job and immediately enter the hospital. Four days later, she faxed a note to DMMHA advising it of these facts. Subsequently, Bowman applied for benefits from the State of Iowa and the Social Security Administration. On April 8, 2009, Bowman began receiving Family Investment Program (FIP) benefits from Iowa. This did not come to the attention of DMMHA until June 4, 2009, when the agency conducted a family income and asset review with Bowman as part of its annual recertification appointment with her. The review included a detailed questionnaire regarding sources of income. Following that review, Bowman was notified in writing that her file was under review for unreported income.

On June 12, 2009, and again on July 10, 2009, DMMHA sent letters to Bowman asking her to verify the child support she received and the amount kept by the state during 2009. Bowman apparently did not respond to these letters.

On July 20, 2009, Bowman provided DMMHA with a copy of a June 19, 2009 letter from Social Security indicating that she (Bowman) would be receiving $946 per month in Social Security disability benefits.

On July 23, 2009, DMMHA advised Bowman that it had completed the aforementioned investigation and that she had received unreported income, i.e., the FIP benefits. After recalculating the amount of housing assistance Bowman should have received, DMMHA directed Bowman to repay $252 by September 21, 2009. The letter further indicated that a failure to make full payment by the deadline would result in termination of her housing assistance. ¹ The letter concluded, “Please be advised that further instances of unreported income may lead to immediate termination of assistance.”

Bowman did not make the $252 payment by September 21, so on September 28, DMMHA requested she attend a meeting.² Bowman went to the meeting on October 12 with her mother. At the meeting, Bowman told DMMHA she had sent in a money order four days before. Later that day, Bowman provided DMMHA with a receipt for a $252 money order she had obtained on October 6. DMMHA subsequently received the $252 money order in the mail on October 13.

At the October 12 meeting, Bowman revealed she had stopped getting FIP in July 2009 and had started receiving $140 per month in Social Security disability payments for each of her three children. According to her petition (and to DMMHA's records), Bowman also informed the agency at the meeting that she had resumed receiving child support of $35 per month.³ Bowman learned of the disability awards in three separate letters dated June 28, 2009—one addressed to each child. Bowman had received all three letters the same day. Bowman claimed she was unaware she had to disclose the children's Social Security payments to DMMHA because they were “for my children's needs.”

On November 30, 2009, Bowman and her mother attended another meeting with DMMHA. At that meeting, Bowman was notified of DMMHA's intent to terminate her participation in the Section 8 program based on five instances of unreported income—i.e., the FIP income, the child support, and the Social Security disability payments for each of the three children. A formal notice was issued that same day, informing Bowman her participation would be terminated effective December 31, 2009.

After receiving the termination notice, Bowman requested an administrative hearing.⁴ A recorded hearing was held on January 4, 2010, before a hearing officer. At the hearing, Bowman explained she had failed to report the FIP benefits because she “thought all the government agencies were together.” Bowman continued to maintain she was unaware the children's Social Security income needed to be reported. She also contended the benefits received for the children should be treated as one instance and not three separate instances of unreported income.

DMMHA made clear at the hearing that “we're not saying fraud, we're saying unreported income.” DMMHA also conceded that the child support and Social Security disability payments to the children would not have reduced Bowman's Section 8 housing assistance even if they had been timely reported. Bowman's mother joined her at the hearing and testified that Bowman had suffered from multiple sclerosis for about four or five years, but did not go onto disability until 2009. She explained that Bowman could not afford her rent without Section 8 assistance. Bowman also testified regarding her medical condition and her hospitalizations in 2009.

DMMHA presented proof at the hearing that Bowman was aware of the obligation to report changes in income and sources of income. That is, Bowman had faxed information to DMMHA about the loss of her job in February 2009 and had also provided information about her personal receipt of Social Security disability benefits in July 2009. DMMHA also maintained that its consistent policy is to treat any situation where a separate family member receives a new source of income as a separate occurrence.

The hearing officer said, “I'm going to take everything into consideration.” He then issued his decision three weeks later on January 25, 2010. The decision found that Bowman's assistance had been properly terminated for the following reasons:

There are clear violations of the federal regulations governing the Section 8 voucher program guidelines. As evidenced by the exhibits, the participant [ ] knew the rules regarding reporting income within ten days. The participant [ ] stated she did not believe the children's benefits needed to be...