A hearing officer heard testimony from Anne Richmond, a housing specialist from CHAC, and Gaston. On September 8, 2004, CHAC held a hearing to determine whether to uphold its termination of Gaston from the voucher program. It ended April 29, 2004.” The check stubs showed gross earnings of $504 in March 2004. Gaston submitted a note to CHAC that stated: “Here are my check stubs when I started working in March but I am not working now. Bring an SEQY statement from the Social Security Administration showing wages earned by Judy from 1998 to present and tax returns for Judy from 1998 to present.” “Use the attached form to request an informal hearing. The letter stated that Gaston may “stop this termination action by taking the following action:” The Social Security Statement for Judy showed wages earned from 1998 to present, no wages were reported to CHAC.” Any information the supplies must be true and complete. Under the terms of its voucher, the family must not commit fraud, bribery or any other corrupt act in connection with the program. “This action is being undertaken because: In 2003, her rent was $650, of which she paid only $161.Ī Social Security printout for Gaston showed that in the designated years she had the following earnings:Īn “intent to terminate” notice dated December 11, 2003, and mailed to Gaston stated that CHAC intended to terminate her from the voucher program: On August 7, 2003, as part of the application for continued occupancy, Gaston signed a preprinted form entitled “Non-Income Affidavit” which stated that she did not have any income. In both cases, CHAC received accurate reports of the plaintiffs' employment and earnings from the Social Security Administration, which led to their termination from the housing program. Both families were terminated from the program because of their failure to report their employment and earnings on the annual applications. Gaston lived with her son and Brantley, who is disabled, lived with her two sons and a daughter. The families of both plaintiffs received housing assistance from CHAC. The multipage application asks for detailed information about family composition and income, including a description of any employment and earnings during the prior 12 months. § 982.1(a)(2) (2006).Įvery year CHAC requires tenants in its program to complete an application for continued occupancy, as part of its “regularly scheduled reexamination * * * of family income and composition.” 24 C.F.R. If CHAC approves the family's selected unit, then CHAC contracts with the owner of the unit “to make rent subsidy payments on behalf of the family.” 24 C.F.R. § 982.1(a)(1), (2) (2006).Ī family in the program may select its own rental unit, as long as it meets the program's “housing quality standards.” 24 C.F.R. HUD “provides housing assistance funds” to CHAC and then CHAC makes payments directly to landlords, on behalf of the tenants in the program. As part of the program, “HUD pays rental subsidies so eligible families can afford decent, safe and sanitary housing.” 24 C.F.R. We affirm both decisions of the circuit court, for the reasons set forth below.ĭefendant CHAC is a private corporation that administers the “Housing Choice Voucher Program” of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). On October 12, 2005, the circuit court of Cook County reversed CHAC's decision to terminate Gaston's payments and on November 9, 2005, it reversed CHAC's decision to terminate Brantley's payments. Chris Goodman, of counsel), for Appellee Judy Gaston.ĭefendant CHAC, the Chicago housing choice voucher program, terminated the housing assistance payments of plaintiffs Judy Gaston and Precious Brantley for their failure to report their respective employment and earnings to CHAC. Precious Brantley, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Appellate Court of Illinois,First District, First Division.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |