 |
| The boot. Get it? |
By Andrew Delaney
The Department for Children and Families (DCF) provides temporary housing assistance under its General Assistance (GA) program. The program is for folks that are in bad situations and need temporary emergency financial help getting or maintaining housing. The program doesn’t provide housing directly, just financial assistance. People who meet the criteria for the program can get up to about a month’s worth of financial assistance.
Ms. Durkee is a single mother who rented a mobile home with her three children. The family’s resources were limited. One child received social security benefits. Mom got food stamps but no longer qualified for certain benefits as she’d timed out of a program.
At the end of April 2015, landlord served mom with a no-cause notice of termination and gave her three months to get out. Rather than waiting for an eviction order from the court, mom moved out the day after the end-of-tenancy date specified in the notice.
She moved into a hotel close by the local DCF office, and the next day, she applied for housing under the GA program, claiming that she’d left her previous housing because it wasn’t safe. DCF asked for proof. And because she’d paid for the hotel for the night, DCF declined to offer assistance.
She applied again the next day. She didn’t bring proof that the mobile home wasn’t safe (an aside: I’m not sure how one might do this. Pictures? A condemnation notice from the building inspector?). She also applied under a GA program that provides assistance for “vulnerable persons”—remember, there was one child receiving social security benefits. This time, DCF denied assistance on the basis that she’d voluntarily left her housing rather than waiting for a court to kick her out. Everyone agrees that other than this point, mom met the criteria for assistance under the rule.
The next day, mom returned with her lawyer (who was also her landlord’s lawyer). She argued that she shouldn’t have to wait for a court to give her the boot if she’d been served with a no-cause eviction notice, and that following the notice isn’t voluntary termination of her tenancy. The place-was-unsafe argument went out the window and was never heard from again.
There was an expedited hearing before the Human Services Board (HSB). The HSB hearing officer got a little wigged out by the landlord’s-and-mom’s-lawyer thing, but mom waived all conflicts and just argued the shouldn’t-have-to-force-a-court-order-to-get-some-help issue. Ultimately, the hearing officer concluded that mom leaving before being ordered to do so by a court meant that she’d voluntarily left her previous housing.
The HSB heard mom’s case and accepted the hearing officer’s recommendation, upholding DCF’s decision to deny temporary assistance and concluding that mom “voluntarily left” her previous housing.
Mom appeals. She argues that her departure wasn’t voluntary, and further, that to satisfy DCF she’d have to force a court action without a valid defense and damage her prospects for future long-term housing.
DCF argues that the case is moot because more than six months have passed mom left her housing, so mom is ineligible now under another rule. If that flops, DCF argues that the decision to deny benefits was discretionary and that’s good enough.
SCOV concludes that DCF screwed up in interpreting its rules but that mom doesn’t get damages.
On the mootness point, SCOV reasons that this is one of those capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review situations. This is a classic exception to the mootness doctrine—which requires a real “live” controversy for courts to intervene—and it means that if something is likely to come up again even if it otherwise isn’t a “live” case, then the case isn't really moot. It’s sort of the “it-might-happen-again” exception. That’s grossly oversimplified in accordance with our standards here at SCOV Law. SCOV reasons that mom is a single mother with several kids, at least one of which has special needs—this probably could happen again.
Once we’re past that little procedural hurdle, we move on to the whether-mom-left-her-housing-voluntarily issue. SCOV generally defers to an administrative agency’s interpretation of its own statutes and rules but not if there’s a clear and convincing showing to the contrary.
Like any other statutory-construction case, we start with the plain language. “Voluntary” generally means done by choice. In other words, “voluntary” means “Because I want to” as opposed to “You’re forcing me to do this.” Watching a chick flick with the wife probably falls somewhere in the middle here.
Here, mom was more or less told: “Leave or get sued.” Mom left when a lawsuit was imminent. Under these circumstances, SCOV ain’t willing to call it “voluntary.” “DCF’s interpretation of ‘voluntarily leaving one’s own housing’ to include leaving in response to, and at the end of the time provided in, a notice of termination runs counter to the plain meaning of the words in the regulation.”
SCOV further notes that mom fully qualified under the rest of the criteria for assistance and that the purpose of the program is to help people like mom—someone “dealing with unemployment, single parenthood, and the life-changing event of receiving a notice of termination from her landlord.”
SCOV notes that forcing evictions is a bit silly. If DCF has its way here, then we’re forcing cases into court just so people can get a little help, and that’s a total waste of resources.
So mom wins the case and the SCOV reverses, entering declaratory judgment for mom. But it’s solely a moral victory. SCOV reasons that damages are not appropriate because mom didn’t provide proof of her out-of-pocket expenses. And that’s that.
Comments
Post a Comment