Costa v. Fall River Housing Authority

Summary

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court considers whether a public housing authority may terminate Section 8 rental assistance for nonviolent criminal activity that allegedly threatens the health, safety, or peaceful enjoyment of nearby residents. The court holds that reliable hearsay may support a termination decision, but concludes that the grievance panel’s process violated HUD regulations because of an impermissibly non impartial decision maker, insufficiently reliable hearsay, and an inadequate explanation of reasons. The judgment is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

Holdings

1. HUD regulations permit a public housing authority to terminate Section 8 assistance for criminal activity beyond violent or drug-related conduct, including criminal conduct that threatens the health, safety, or right to peaceful enjoyment of other residents and persons residing in the immediate vicinity.
2. Neither the HUD regulations nor procedural due process categorically bars a public housing authority from relying on hearsay evidence in terminating Section 8 assistance, but hearsay may support the decision only when it contains substantial indicia of reliability.
3. The detailed police report based on the detective's personal observations was sufficiently reliable to support a termination decision, but the newspaper article's unattributed, multilevel, conclusory hearsay was not sufficiently reliable to serve as the basis for termination.
4. The FRHA violated 24 C.F.R. § 982.555(e)(4)(i) by allowing the officer who had approved the termination decision at Costa's preliminary hearing to participate on the grievance panel, and the panel's written decision was inadequate because it failed to state specific factual findings, identify the criminal activity found, determine whether it threatened nearby residents, and show consideration of mitigating circumstances.

Questions Presented

1. Whether HUD regulations authorize a public housing authority to terminate Section 8 assistance for nonviolent, nondrug-related criminal activity that threatens the health, safety, or right to peaceful enjoyment of other residents and persons in the immediate vicinity.
2. Whether a public housing authority may rely on hearsay evidence in deciding to terminate Section 8 assistance under the HUD regulations and the Due Process Clause.
3. Whether the FRHA's use of the same hearing officer in Costa's preliminary hearing and grievance-panel hearing violated the applicable HUD regulation requiring an impartial decision maker.
4. Whether the grievance panel's written decision satisfied the HUD requirement that it state the reasons for termination and make factual determinations based on a preponderance of the evidence.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded