Elgibali v. City of Hous.

• Decision Date: 04 November 2020
• Docket Number: No. 3452,3452
• Parties: MAHMOUD ELGIBALI, ET UX. v. CITY OF COLLEGE PARK HOUSING AUTHORITY
• Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

MAHMOUD ELGIBALI, ET UX. v. CITY OF COLLEGE PARK HOUSING AUTHORITY

No. 3452

COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND

September Term, 2018

November 4, 2020

Circuit Court for Prince George's County

Case No. CAL17-21512

UNREPORTED

Graeff, Leahy, Shaw Geter, JJ.

Opinion by Leahy, J.

*This is an unreported opinion, and it may not be cited in any paper, brief, motion, or other document filed in this Court or any other Maryland Court as either precedent within the rule of stare decisis or as persuasive authority. Md. Rule 1-104.

Appellants, Mahmoud Elgibali and Hanan Elmgdlawi, filed a petition for a writ of administrative mandamus in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County from a hearing officer's decision in a grievance filed by Appellants against their landlord, City of College Park Housing Authority ("CPHA" or "Appellee"). Appellants are married and since January 1, 2013, they have lived in Attick Towers, a public housing facility managed by CPHA.

Appellants elected to file a grievance under the College Park Housing Authority Grievance Procedure (October 2013) ("Grievance Procedure") after they received a "Notice of Termination of Lease for Fraud" from CPHA. Following a failed settlement conference, the parties appeared before a hearing officer for a formal grievance hearing. Thereafter, the hearing officer informed the parties in a letter that she was overturning CPHA's decision to terminate Appellants' lease and that Appellants would be required to pay CPHA $7,850.00 in back rent.

The circuit court denied the petition for the writ of administrative mandamus and rendered the case closed. Appellants timely appealed and present the following questions for our review,¹ which we have rephrased and consolidated as follows:

(1) Did the hearing officer exceed her authority in ruling that the Appellants owed $7,850.00 in back rent?

(2) Was the hearing officer's determination supported by substantial evidence in the record, or was it arbitrary and capricious?

(3) Was the hearing officer an "impartial person" as defined under the CPHA's Grievance Procedure in accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 1437d(k)?

(4) Did the Circuit Court for Prince George's County abuse its discretion by not delaying the hearing on the Petition for a Writ of Administrative Mandamus?

After considering, sua sponte, whether this Court has jurisdiction to consider this appeal, we resolve that it does and then proceed to hold that the hearing officer did not exceed her authority in determining that the Appellants owed $7,850.00 in back rent, and that the hearing officer's decision was not arbitrary or capricious. We conclude thatAppellants waived their objection to the issue of the impartiality of the hearing officer and discern no possible abuse of discretion by the circuit court for failing to continue the hearing. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court.

BACKGROUND

The Lease Agreement

On January 1, 2013, Appellants moved into their apartment in Attick Towers,² after signing a "Dwelling Lease" with CPHA (the "Lease") on December 21, 2012. Attick Towers is a public housing facility serving elderly and/or disabled individuals. CPHA operates and manages Attick Towers in accordance with the regulations and procedures of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD").³

CPHA provides housing to low income families and is defined as a "public housing agency." CPHA offers tenants a "flat rent" option, which is market-based and represents the "actual market value of PHA's housing units,"⁴ or an income-based rental option, pursuant to which their monthly rental payments are determined based on their reported income.

Appellants qualified as residents for an elderly unit at Attick Towers after Mr. Elgibali retired from his job at Zayed University.⁵ When Appellants signed the Lease on December 12, 2012, they chose the income-based option. Because Appellants chose the income-based option, they were required to complete an annual reexamination of their finances pursuant to which Appellants were required, as stated in the Lease, to "provide current and accurate information regarding income, assets, allowances, deductions and family composition" to CPHA. As Mrs. Elmgdlawi had been and remained unemployed,Mr. Elgibali's income served as the sole source of income used in making rent determinations at the initial signing of the Lease and during annual reexaminations. At the time that the Lease was signed, Mr. Elgibali reported his sole source of income as $1,036.00 a month from Social Security.

Appellants' initial monthly rent under the income-based rental program was $314.00, based on information they provided to CPHA. The "ANNUAL REEXAMINATION" provision contained in the Lease warned that failure to furnish accurate income information was grounds for termination of the Lease:

3.ANNUAL REEXAMINATION

(a) If the Tenant has chosen an income-based rent, then at least once annually, the Tenant is required to provide current and accurate information regarding income, assets, allowances, deductions, and family composition to enable the [C]PHA to make determinations with respect to rent, eligibility, and the appropriateness of the size of the dwelling unit. The Tenant's failure to attend the annual recertification meeting or to furnish the requested information and certifications in a timely manner, is grounds for termination of this Lease by the [CPHA].

* * *

(c) If the [C]PHA determines that the Tenant has gained admission or remained in occupancy of a [C]PHA dwelling unit through the Tenant's misrepresentation of his or her income, assets, childcare responsibilities, or family composition, the [C]PHA may terminate this Lease and collect any deficiencies in rent which result from such misrepresentations.

(Emphasis added). Additionally, under Section 4(b) of the Lease, the tenant was required to reimburse CPHA if the requisite financial information was not timely submitted or false:

4. REDETERMINATION OF RENT, DWELLING SIZE AND ELIGIBILITY FOR CONTINUED OCCUPANCY

***

(b) Tenants that choose an income-based rent shall reimburse the [C]PHA for the difference between the rent that was paid and the rent that should have been charged if proper notice of the income change had been given and the Tenant either did not submit information in a timely manner or submitted false information.

(Emphasis added).

In 2013, CPHA determined that Appellants did not properly fulfill their income reporting obligations in accordance with the Lease. CPHA found that Mr. Elgibali had failed to include income from the University of Maryland and incorrectly reported Social Security payments as his sole source of income. As a result, CPHA used the "Retroactive Rent Worksheet" to determine that Appellants' incorrect reporting resulted in unpaid rent in the amount of $4,975.30. CPHA and Appellants entered into a Repayment Agreement, which allowed Appellants to make monthly payments of $414.61 until the debt was satisfied.

CPHA learned of a second reporting discrepancy for the 2015-2016 fiscal year in an income report provided by HUD. CPHA concluded that Mr. Elgibali had earned additional income that was not properly reported at the 2016 income recertification process. As a result, CPHA decided to terminate the lease rather than negotiate a repayment option.

Notice of Termination

CPHA issued a written "Notice of Termination of Lease for Fraud" to Appellants on March 13, 2017. The Notice informed Appellants that, after conducting an investigation, CPHA had determined that Mr. Elgibali failed to report his employment with the University of Maryland as a Lecturer for various periods of time starting in 2015. A"Verification of Employment Income" form received by CPHA from the University verified that "Mr. Elgibali received a base pay, effective September 4, 2016, at Six Thousand Dollars, ($6,000.00), per year, and earnings as of the date of the form at Seven Thousand Ninety Dollars and Ninety Seven Cents, ($7,090.970)." The letter also specified that in addition to the income from the University of Maryland, a HUD income report showed that Mr. Elgibali earned at least $4,800.00 from Adecco, USA, Inc., a staffing agency, in 2015. CPHA asserted that Appellants inaccurately represented Social Security payments as their sole source of income and included a reference to the previous determination that Appellants underrepresented their income in 2013. The letter further stated:

This misrepresentation of income and failure to properly report and disclose all of your annual income constitutes fraud under the terms and conditions of your Lease with CPHA and its Admission and Continued Occupancy Policy. . . . If the misrepresentation resulted in the tenant's paying a lower tenant rent that he/she should have paid, the tenant will be required to pay the difference between rent owed and the amount that should have been paid. The amount shall be paid whether or not the tenant remains in occupancy, and failure to pay under terms established by CPHA shall always result in immediate termination of the Lease. CPHA may demand full payment within seven days.

* * *

Per CPHA's Grievance Procedure, in the event you wish to request a grievance of this thirty (30) days written notice of termination of Lease, any grievance must be presented, in writing to CPHA's main office . . . within five (5) business days after the occurrence of the event giving rise to the grievance.

(Emphasis added).

Request for a Formal Grievance Hearing

On March 24, 2017, Appellants opted to attend an informal settlement conference with CPHA. The settlement conference was unsuccessful, and Appellants requested a formal grievance hearing on March 29, 2017. In a letter sent on Appellants' behalf by trial counsel, Appellants challenged the allegation that they failed to report $7,090.97 of their income from the University of Maryland, or $4,800.00 from Adecco, USA, Inc. Appellants claimed that Mr. Elgibali had submitted his tax returns at the time of his...