Moretalara v. Bos. Hous. Auth.
| Decision Date | 03 December 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 19-P-1024,19-P-1024 |
| Citation | 99 Mass.App.Ct. 1,161 N.E.3d 444 |
| Parties | Flavia MORETALARA v. BOSTON HOUSING AUTHORITY. |
| Court | Appeals Court of Massachusetts |
Michael J. Louis & Angela Marcolina for the defendant.
Deena Zakim for the plaintiff.
Susan Ann Silverstein, of the District of Columbia, & Richard M. Glassman & Thomas Murphy, for AARP & others, amici curiae, submitted a brief.
Eric Dunn, of Virginia, & Faye B. Rachlin, Springfield, for National Housing Law Project, amicus curiae, submitted a brief.
Present: Green, C.J., Milkey, & Wendlandt, JJ.
The plaintiff, Flavia Moretalara, is an elderly tenant who suffers from various disabilities. Her son often visited her at her apartment to help take care of her. Unbeknownst to the plaintiff, her son also hid heroin and a high-capacity firearm magazine there. When he was arrested and the contraband discovered, the Boston Housing Authority (BHA) terminated the plaintiff's Section 8 housing benefits. She, in turn, sought to reverse that decision in court, claiming that her disabilities prevented her from detecting and preventing her son's misconduct on the premises. She also provided evidence that, going forward, her son had agreed not to return to her apartment, and that she had secured a new personal care attendant who would help her monitor her apartment. Based on a record developed over a series of administrative hearings, a Housing Court judge ruled in the plaintiff's favor and enjoined the BHA from terminating her Section 8 benefits. On the BHA's appeal, we affirm.1
Background. 1. Flavia Moretalara. The plaintiff, who is a cancer
survivor, has long suffered from numerous medical conditions.
The plaintiff rents an apartment in the Jamaica Plain section of Boston with the help of a Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher administered by the BHA.2 She has lived in that apartment since October 2001. Her family members, including her son, often visited her to help care for her. The family members would stay in the apartment's second bedroom when visiting. According to an uncontested averment by the plaintiff, her son "was especially helpful because he was strong enough to pick me up if I fell," and could "help[ ] me physically if I fell or struggled, which happened and still happens regularly."
2. Section 8 benefits terminations. The plaintiff's lease imposed various obligations on her, including, as relevant here, a duty "to refrain from engaging in and to cause ... guest(s), or any person under [her] control to refrain from engaging in any criminal or illegal activity in the rented Premises." Should she commit serious or repeated lease violations, the BHA is authorized -- but not required -- to terminate her Section 8 benefits. See 24 C.F.R. §§ 982.551(e), 982.552(c)(1)(i). See also BHA Administrative Plan for Section 8 Programs § 13.5.2(d) (rev. 2020). However, Federal law grants the plaintiff, and beneficiaries like her, two important protections. First, in deciding whether to terminate Section 8 benefits pursuant to 24 C.F.R. § 982.552(c)(1)(i), the BHA may consider all relevant circumstances, which include "the extent of participation or culpability of individual family members, mitigating circumstances related to the disability of a family member, and the effects of denial or termination of assistance on other family members who were not involved in the" event leading to termination. 24 C.F.R. § 982.552(c)(2)(i). Second, "[i]f the family includes a person with disabilities," the BHA must consider granting a "reasonable accommodation" of the disability in accordance with Federal law3 and the BHA's own policies. 24 C.F.R. § 982.552(c)(2)(iv).
The BHA's current reasonable accommodation policy (BHARAP) is dated February 12, 2016. Under it, a Section 8 beneficiary may seek an accommodation "related to policies and practices, such as when [a beneficiary's] disability leads to a program violation, leading to a request that the BHA not proceed with termination if [she] provides sufficient evidence of an effective plan to prevent the violation from recurring." BHARAP § 3.2. As explained by the BHA, such a request provides equal opportunity by helping put a beneficiary "in the same position as someone who does not have [their] disability." Id. In effect, "[t]he [beneficiary] requests that [they] be given another chance to comply with the program requirements and remain housed because a person without [their] disability would not have violated the requirements in the first place." Id.
When a beneficiary requests such an accommodation, the "BHA will determine whether it is reasonable to believe that the violation is unlikely to recur if it provides the requested Accommodation." BHARAP § 5.2. Importantly, the policy contains a presumption in the beneficiary's favor:
BHARAP § 3.5. Also, "[i]f a Client requests an Accommodation in the context of a ... proposed termination, and it is determined to be ineffective or unreasonable, BHA will propose alternative Accommodations, if they exist, to resolve the matter." BHARAP § 5.3.
3. The son's arrest and the BHA's efforts to terminate the plaintiff's benefits. At approximately 6:30 A.M. one morning in 2015, Boston Police Department officers announced themselves at the plaintiff's apartment. The plaintiff, her sister, and the plaintiff's son were at the apartment at the time. The police officers were starting to breach the apartment door, but the plaintiff opened the door before they did so.
After being admitted to the apartment, the police officers executed a search warrant targeting the plaintiff's son. In the second bedroom, they found a plastic bag containing about one gram of heroin, a high-capacity firearm magazine in a safe in the closet, and certain drug paraphernalia under the mattress and in the closet. It is not clear how long these items had been in the apartment. The officers arrested the plaintiff's son. Boston Emergency Medical Services was called to address the plaintiff's apparent distress during the execution of the warrant, but she declined transportation to a hospital.
Although the plaintiff had no knowledge of her son's misconduct, the BHA moved to terminate the plaintiff's Section 8 benefits. Thus began a tortuous procedural history that we need not describe in detail. It suffices to note the following, reserving some additional facts for future discussion. After an administrative hearing, the hearing officer (initial hearing officer) concluded that the tenant had committed a serious lease violation and approved the termination of her Section 8 benefits.
The plaintiff then filed a complaint against the BHA in the Housing Court, raising both Federal and State law disability claims, as well as other claims. Separately, she formally requested from the BHA a reasonable accommodation allowing her to stay in the apartment with a commitment from her son that he would stay away from her apartment and with the support of a personal care attendant. In accordance with its policy for evaluating reasonable accommodation requests, the BHA met with the plaintiff and her lawyer and invited the plaintiff to submit additional information, which she did. See BHARAP §§ 3.5, 3.6. The BHA then denied the plaintiff's request without proposing an alternative.
A second administrative hearing to consider that denial followed. It took place before a different hearing officer (subsequent hearing officer) who took evidence, heard argument, and then upheld the BHA's decision. The Housing Court judge, concerned that the subsequent hearing officer had misapplied cases addressing the "innocent tenant" defense, then remanded the matter to the subsequent hearing officer with instructions to reconsider the matter without relying on those cases. On remand, the subsequent hearing officer again upheld the BHA's decision, albeit on different grounds.
In the meantime, the BHA had filed a dispositive motion in the Housing Court seeking judgment on the pleadings or summary judgment, which the plaintiff had opposed. After the third administrative decision issued, the judge ruled for the plaintiff on her Federal and State discrimination claims. He reversed the hearing officers' decisions and ordered the BHA to reinstate the plaintiff's Section 8 benefits. Then, because the plaintiff had an adequate alternative legal remedy, the judge ordered her certiorari claims dismissed.
Discussion. 1. Legal framework and standard of review. The winding path this case has taken has created considerable confusion as to what claims properly are before us and what standard of review applies. In seeking to challenge the BHA's decision to terminate the plaintiff's Section 8 benefits, and to deny her a reasonable accommodation, the plaintiff raised Federal and State claims. In the portion of the amended complaint raising the Federal claims, the plaintiff cited 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in asserting rights under various Federal laws such as the Fair...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Miller v. Superintendent, Mass. Corr. Inst.
...we face is whether DOC has demonstrated an entitlement to judgment in its favor as a matter of law. See Moretalara v. Boston Hous. Auth., 99 Mass. App. Ct. 1, 7, 161 N.E.3d 444 (2020). Miller has not demonstrated how he was deprived of an opportunity to respond to the largely uncontested ma......
-
Miller v. Shirley
...face is whether DOC has demonstrated an entitlement to judgment in its favor as a matter of law. See Moretalara v. Boston Hous. Auth., 99 Mass. App. Ct. 1, 7 (2020). Miller has not demonstrated how he was deprived of an opportunity to respond to the largely uncontested materials that DOC su......
-
Wells Fargo Bank, Nat'l Ass'n v. Trocki
...Shkolnik, 443 Mass. 300, 306-307 (2005) (Fair Housing Act and G. L. c. 151B prohibit discrimination in housing); Moretalara v. Boston Hous. Auth., 99 Mass. App. Ct. 1, 8 (2020) (plaintiff's entitlement to reasonable accommodation requires showing of disability, causal link between disabilit......