Smith v. McHenry County Housing Authority

2023 IL App (2d) 220448-U

• Court: Appellate Court of Illinois
• Decided: June 30, 2023
• Docket: 2-22-0448
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

2023 IL App (2d) 220448-U No. 2-22-0448 Order filed June 30, 2023

NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23(b) and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1). ______________________________________________________________________________

IN THE

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

SECOND DISTRICT ______________________________________________________________________________

SEHIGHYA SMITH, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ) of McHenry County. Plaintiff-Appellant, ) ) v. ) No. 22-MR-46 ) McHENRY COUNTY HOUSING ) AUTHORITY and KIM ULBRICH, ) in Her Official Capacity as Executive ) Director of the McHenry County Housing ) Authority, ) Honorable ) Kevin G. Costello, Defendants-Appellees. ) Judge, Presiding. ______________________________________________________________________________

JUSTICE JORGENSEN delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Hutchinson and Schostok concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

¶1 Held: (1) Housing authority’s decision to terminate plaintiff’s benefits was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the record clearly showed that plaintiff persistently failed to submit documentation required for her eligibility review. (2) Plaintiff forfeited her claim that the housing authority harassed and stalked her, and, in any event, the claim lacked merit.

¶2 Plaintiff, Sehighya Smith, appeals the judgment of the McHenry County circuit court

affirming the decision of the McHenry County Housing Authority (MCHA) to terminate her

housing benefits for her failure to provide required documentation during a review of her eligibility 2023 IL App (2d) 220448-U

for benefits. Because the decision to terminate was not against the manifest weight of the evidence,

we affirm.

¶3 I. BACKGROUND

¶4 Plaintiff received federal housing-assistance benefits under a voucher program

administered by MCHA. MCHA is a public housing authority (PHA) that receives funding from

the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). HUD provides MCHA

with rental subsidies (i.e., vouchers), which MCHA distributes to landlords on behalf of the

program’s recipients so they can afford decent, safe, and sanitary housing in the private market.

See 42 U.S.C. § 1437f(C)(4), (o)(1)(A) (2018). The voucher program is governed by HUD’s

regulations, codified in 24 C.F.R. Pt. 982 (2021) (Part 982). Additionally, Part 982 requires each

PHA to “adopt a written administrative plan that establishes local policies for administration of

the program in accordance with HUD requirements.” 24 C.F.R. § 982.54(a) (2021). In particular,

the administrative plan must “state[ ] PHA policy on matters for which the PHA has discretion to

establish local policies.” 24 C.F.R. § 982.54(a) (2021).

¶5 In August 2019, plaintiff was admitted to the voucher program. As part of an annual review

in August 2020, plaintiff submitted a nonincome affidavit averring that she had no income from

any source, including wages, child support, social security, unemployment, or any other source of

government aid. However, she failed to complete and submit all documents required for

participation under the zero-income option of the voucher program. On August 31, 2020, MCHA

sent plaintiff a letter (1) notifying her that her benefits were terminated for her failure to submit

the required documentation and (2) advising her of her right to an informal hearing. Eventually,

the issue was resolved, and MCHA did not terminate plaintiff from the voucher program in 2020.

-2- 2023 IL App (2d) 220448-U

¶6 Because plaintiff reported zero income during her August 2020 annual review, she was

thereafter required to participate in a semiannual zero-income review. As part of the semiannual

review, MCHA required plaintiff to submit documentation verifying her lack of income. Failure

to participate in the semiannual review could result in plaintiff’s termination from the voucher

program.

¶7 On January 8, 2021, MCHA mailed plaintiff a letter notifying her of the semiannual review

of her zero-income status. The letter provided a list of the documents she was required to complete

and return, including verification and consent forms, a nonincome affidavit, a personal declaration,

and an applicant/tenant certification form. The letter asked plaintiff to return the required

documents no later than January 29, 2021. The letter also reminded plaintiff that failure to return

the documents might result in her termination from the voucher program.

¶8 On February 2, 2021, an MCHA caseworker made a follow-up telephone call to plaintiff.

The caseworker left a voicemail reminding plaintiff of the need to submit the zero-income

documentation.

¶9 Because plaintiff did not contact MCHA or submit the documentation, MCHA sent

plaintiff a letter on February 24, 2021, advising her that she was terminated from the voucher

program for “[f]ailure to fulfill family obligations by failing to submit necessary documentation

for [her] 6[-]month zero[-]income recertification as required.” The letter advised defendant that

she had the right to an informal hearing on MCHA’s decision if she requested it by March 6, 2021.

¶ 10 On March 1, 2021, MCHA received plaintiff’s request for an informal hearing. On March

2, 2021, Karen Seager, MCHA’s section 8 coordinator, emailed plaintiff and explained that MCHA

would be willing to vacate the termination of benefits if plaintiff completed the zero-income

review, including all requested documentation, by March 12, 2021. Seager’s email included forms

-3- 2023 IL App (2d) 220448-U

for plaintiff to complete: a personal declaration, a nonincome affidavit, and an applicant/tenant

certification. She also requested that plaintiff submit three months of current checking account

statements and two months of current utility bills. Seager further included a list of documents

plaintiff needed to submit so that MCHA could calculate her income, assets, and deductions.

Seager advised plaintiff to carefully review the list. Seager also asked plaintiff not to leave any

parts of the forms blank and to sign and put full dates on all paperwork. Finally, she advised

plaintiff that MCHA would schedule an informal hearing if it did not receive all required

paperwork by March 12, 2021.

¶ 11 On March 11, 2021, as part of a prehearing review, MCHA obtained information from the

Illinois Department of Human Services (DHS) that, in August 2020, plaintiff started receiving

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) benefits and had been receiving $431 in

monthly TANF benefits since September 2020. The participants in the review were Seager, Kim

Ulbrich (MCHA’s executive director), and Holly Lyons (MCHA’s deputy director). The factors

they considered were the “[s]eriousness of the [c]ase[,]” the “[e]xtant [sic] of participation or

culpability of individual family members[.]” “[m]itigating circumstances related to the disability

of a family member[,]” and “[t]he effect of denial or termination of assistance on other family

members who were not involved in the action or failure[.]” See 24 C.F.R. § 982.552(c)(2)(i)

(2021). The review participants agreed that if plaintiff did not complete and submit the required

documentation by 4 p.m. on March 12, 2021, MCHA would proceed with the termination of

benefits.

¶ 12 On March 12, 2021, MCHA received an email from plaintiff that included the personal

declaration, the nonincome affidavit, and the applicant/tenant certification. Plaintiff included no

other documentation with the email.

-4- 2023 IL App (2d) 220448-U

¶ 13 Later that same day, Seager advised plaintiff by email that she had failed to complete the

employer section of the personal declaration and still needed to submit three months of current

bank statements, two months of current utility bills, and documentation of her TANF benefits. As

in the March 2, 2021, email, Seager attached a list of documents plaintiff would need to submit for

MCHA to calculate her income, assets, or deductions. She again advised plaintiff to carefully

review the list. She further told plaintiff that if MCHA did not receive her completed personal

declaration and other required documentation by 4 p.m. that day, MCHA would hold an informal

hearing on March 23, 2021.

¶ 14 On March 14, 2021, MCHA received an email from plaintiff with two months of electric

bills, one month of gas bills, and two months of bank statements. Plaintiff stated that she would

not complete the employer section of her personal declaration or submit any documentation

regarding her TANF benefits.

¶ 15 On March 23, 2021, an informal hearing was held before hearing officer Melissa Taylor.

Seagar testified that MCHA sought termination of benefits for plaintiff’s violation of “family

obligations” under section 982.551 (24 C.F.R. § 982.551 (2021)). Under section 982.551(b)(2), a

“participant family” under the voucher program “must supply any information requested by the

PHA or HUD for use in a regularly scheduled reexamination or interim reexamination of family

income and composition in accordance with HUD requirements.” 24 C.F.R. § 982.551(b)(2)

(2021). Seagar explained that MCHA terminated plaintiff from the voucher program because she

failed to provide all documentation MCHA sought under section 982.551(b)(2).

¶ 16 In her testimony, plaintiff agreed that Seager’s version of events “did happen.” According

to plaintiff, she submitted on March 12, 2021, all documentation she had available. In response,

Seager testified that there was still paperwork outstanding. According to Seager, plaintiff needed

-5- 2023 IL App (2d) 220448-U

to amend her personal declaration, submit documentation regarding her TANF benefits, and

provide another month of bank statements.

¶ 17 The hearing officer submitted a written order upholding MCHA’s termination of plaintiff

from the voucher program. The officer found that plaintiff had failed to provide or complete all

required documentation and had no intention of completing and supplying those documents. The

officer also noted that she had reviewed MCHA’s evidence and considered (1) “[t]he seriousness

of the case,” (2) “[t]he effect that denial of assistance may have on the other member of the family

[i.e., plaintiff’s minor child] who was not involved in the action or failure to act,” and (3) “[t]he

effect [that denial of assistance] will have on [plaintiff], the displacement of said [plaintiff,] and

the potential of any future housing for [plaintiff’s] family.” See 24 C.F.R. § 982.552(c)(2)(i)

(2021).

¶ 18 Plaintiff then filed a complaint in the circuit court of McHenry County for a writ of

certiorari, seeking review of the order approving the termination of her voucher benefits. The

complaint alleged that the plaintiff had been evicted from her apartment because of the termination.

The complaint further alleged that plaintiff had provided all documents required to determine

eligibility and that the hearing officer’s decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Plaintiff asked the trial court to reverse MCHA’s termination of her benefits.

¶ 19 In a written order, the trial court affirmed the decision to terminate benefits. The court

noted that it had considered the record of the administrative proceeding and the parties’ oral

arguments. The court found that the record contradicted plaintiff’s claim that she had complied

with program requirements. The court further noted that plaintiff (1) failed to provide any

documentation regarding her TANF benefits and (2) falsely stated in her nonincome affidavit that

-6- 2023 IL App (2d) 220448-U

she was not receiving TANF benefits. The court commented that MCHA’s decision to terminate

plaintiff’s benefits “was not done lightly” and was amply supported by the record.

¶ 20 Plaintiff, in turn, filed this timely appeal.

¶ 21 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 22 On appeal, plaintiff contends, pro se, that we should (1) reverse MCHA’s decision to

terminate her voucher benefits and (2) grant her financial compensation for “stress, humiliation,

pain, [and] suffering” caused by MCHA’s “abuse, stalking[,] and harassment.”

¶ 23 “The appeal of a trial court’s ruling on a petition for certiorari seeking review of an

administrative decision is treated the same way as any other appeal for administrative review.”

Stewart v. Boone County Housing Authority, 2018 IL App (2d) 180052, ¶ 22. “Specifically, we

review the decision of the administrative agency, not the decision of the trial court, and the record

only of the administrative proceedings.” Stewart, 2018 IL App (2d) 180052, ¶ 22. The applicable

standard of review, which determines the degree of deference given to the agency’s decision,

depends upon whether the question presented is one of fact, one of law, or a mixed question of fact

and law. Stewart, 2018 IL App (2d) 180052, ¶ 22. An administrative agency’s factual findings

are considered prima facie true and correct (Mireless v. Dart, 2023 IL App (1st) 221090, ¶ 56) and

are disturbed only if they are against the manifest weight of the evidence (Stewart, 2018 IL App

(2d) 180052, ¶ 22). A factual finding is against the manifest weight of the evidence only where

the opposite conclusion is clearly apparent. Beggs v. Board of Education of Murphysboro

Community Unit School District No. 186, 2016 IL 120236, ¶ 50.

¶ 24 Here, the evidence clearly established that plaintiff failed to supply the documentation

MCHA required for the semiannual review of plaintiff’s eligibility for benefits. Despite proper

notice and several opportunities to comply, plaintiff submitted only some of the required

-7- 2023 IL App (2d) 220448-U

information. After plaintiff’s initial failure, MCHA made clear to plaintiff that it would terminate

her benefits if she failed to submit the required documents. Nonetheless, MCHA gave plaintiff

another opportunity to provide the information. Although plaintiff submitted some of the

information, she expressly refused to complete the employer section of the personal declaration

and to submit documents related to her TANF benefits. She also failed to provide the needed

banking statements and utility bills. Her failures justified MCHA’s termination of her voucher

benefits. 1 Thus, the hearing officer’s decision upholding the termination of plaintiff’s voucher

benefits was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

¶ 25 We further note that plaintiff exhibited a pattern of failing to comply with MCHA’s

requests for documentation. Her original failure was during the annual review in August 2020.

After MCHA advised her in August 2020 of its intent to terminate her from the voucher program,

plaintiff eventually complied. Again, in 2021, when plaintiff balked at submitting completed

forms, MCHA gave plaintiff every opportunity to comply, yet she persistently refused. Her

1 We note that it appears that MCHA sought discretionary as opposed to mandatory

termination. See Stewart, 2018 IL App (2d) 180052, ¶ 26 (comparing mandatory and discretionary

termination under Part 982 (24 C.F.R. Pt. 928 (2021)). However, plaintiff raises no issue in that

regard. We nonetheless observe that, in rendering her decision, the hearing officer considered

factors bearing on discretionary termination, such as (1) “[t]he seriousness of the case,” (2) “[t]he

effect that denial of assistance may have on the other member of the family [i.e., plaintiff’s minor

child] who was not involved in the action or failure to act,” and (3) “[t]he effect [that denial of

assistance] will have on [plaintiff], the displacement of [plaintiff,] and the potential of any future

housing for [plaintiff’s] family.” See 24 C.F.R. § 982.552(c)(2)(i) (2021).

-8- 2023 IL App (2d) 220448-U

repeated and willful failure to comply with the voucher program’s requirements further justified

her termination.

¶ 26 As for plaintiff’s other appellate contention—that she is entitled to money damages for

MCHA’s conduct—we note that she did not allege such a claim in her complaint or otherwise

pursue such relief in the trial court. Thus, she forfeited the issue. See Moore v. Board of Education

of the City of Chicago, 2016 IL App (1st) 133148, ¶ 35 (issues raised for first time on appeal are

forfeited). Even if we were to address the issue’s merits, there is no evidence in the record to

support any claim that MCHA harassed, stalked, or otherwise injured plaintiff.

¶ 27 III. CONCLUSION

¶ 28 For the reasons stated, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court of McHenry County.

¶ 29 Affirmed.

-9-