ALJDEC

00F-526819609-MCH · Maricopa County Housing Department · 2000-03-13

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: March 8, 2000. APPEARANCES: Gina Huskey, Appellant; Latachia Morrissette, Area Housing Manager, Maricopy County Housing Department; Christy Clark, observer; and Richard Valenzuela, observer. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Dorinda M. Lang. _____________________________________________________________________

Maricopa County Housing Department (the “Department”) properly declined to renew Gina Huskey’s lease for repeated lease violations. The weight of the evidence showed that Gina Huskey changed the locks on her unit, allowed damage to the unit or allowed her co-tenant to damage the unit, and failed to make herself available to resolve issues with the Department. Therefore, I recommend that the Department Director deny her appeal. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Gina Huskey and Richard Valenzuela initially leased a rental unit from the Department. On January 28, 1999, Gina Huskey signed a renewal lease. Though Richard Valenzuela was still on the lease, he did not sign it until October 1999. The lease provides certain conditions of occupancy. Tenants are prohibited from harming the property and from allowing guests or other household members to harm the property. They are also prohibited from making alterations such as changing the exterior locks without written approval by the Department. 2. The Department requires tenants to sign an Applicant/Tenants Certification at the same time as the lease. It is an acknowledgment by the tenant that they will cooperate by signing needed forms and providing necessary information. 3. On April 6, 1999, the Department repaired a damaged door knob and door bar in the refrigerator. It also fixed the front of a drawer. The job was not completed, however, because the front door locks had been changed by Ms. Huskey without the Department’s permission. 4. On May 24, 1999, the Department replaced a broken window at the unit. Ms. Huskey testified that the window was broken while she was out of the home and was the result of criminal activity. She had no knowledge of who broke the window. 5. On June 29 and 30, 1999, the Department replaced the front door and frame. Ms. Huskey testified that Richard Valenzuela kicked the door in when she did not answer it fast enough. She did not explain why the other tenant in the unit would need to knock on his own door. 6. On September 30, 1999, the Department issued two letters to Ms. Huskey entitled Lease Violation. One of the letters stated that Richard Valenzuela had failed to sign his lease agreement; the other complained of numerous repairs and lock changes. Both letters stated that continued violations would no longer be accepted. 7. On October 25, 1999, during a quality inspection, the Department discovered that Ms. Huskey had changed the locks again without permission. Ms. Huskey testified that the key had broken off in the lock once but could not remember whether it was the first or second time she changed the locks. The Department’s notes, made by Latachia Morrissette, indicate that this was regarding the second lock change. 8. On December 13, 1999, Latachia Morrissette issued Ms. Huskey a Lease Non-Renewal Notice by certified mail stating that the Department would not renew her lease due to the numerous violations. 9. Ms. Huskey filed an appeal from the Notice, and the Office of Administrative Hearings set the matter for hearing on March 8, 1999. At hearing, Ms. Huskey argued that the damage to her unit was not her fault. She felt she was a victim of criminal activity and the actions of her co- tenant. She did not deny changing the locks but stated that one time was because her key broke in it. 10. Ms. Morrissette argued that Ms. Huskey is responsible for the activities at her apartment and that the other units do not experience this much damage. She also argued that Richard Valenzuela is a tenant too, so his actions must be considered in the Department’s decision. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Maricopa County Housing Department (the “Department”) has jurisdiction to terminate leases under the federally funded low-income housing programs in Maricopa County. 42 U.S.C.A. §1437; 24 C.F.R. §5.100; and 24 C.F.R. §982.51. 2. Ms. Huskey is entitled to a hearing with the Office of Administrative Hearings prior to termination of her assistance under the program. 24 C.F.R. §982.555(a)(v) and 982.555(e)(4). 3. The Department has the burden of demonstrating by a preponderance of the evidence that its decision to terminate Ms. Huskey’s assistance was appropriate. 24 C.F.R. §982.555(e)(6). 4. Ms. Huskey is prohibited from seriously or repeatedly violating her lease under the program and must notify the Department if any family member no longer resides in the unit. She must also cooperate in providing information, including requested certification, release or other documentation. 24 C.F.R. §982.551(b), (e) and (H)(3). 5. The lease prohibits damaging the unit or allowing others to damage the unit or changing the locks without written permission. Its Applicant/Tenant Certification requires cooperation in signing needed forms and providing verification. The Department has established by a preponderance of the evidence that Ms. Huskey repeated violated her lease by changing her locks and allowing damage to the unit. While Ms. Huskey did not personally fail to sign the new lease agreement or kick down her door, her co-tenant did. Unfortunately, since both tenants are on the lease, everyone on the lease must suffer when one tenant destroys property and fails to cooperate. The Department is entitled to terminate the lease. Therefore, the action includes everyone on the lease regardless of his or her comparative responsibility for the violations. RECOMMENDED DECISION Because of the repeated violations of the lease by the tenants, the Department appropriately terminated Appellant’s lease. Therefore, I recommend that the Department deny this appeal and sustain the Lease Non- Renewal Notice dated December 13, 1999. Done this day, March 13, 2000. OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

______________________________________ Dorinda M. Lang Administrative Law Judge

Original transmitted by mail this ____ day of ____________, 2000, to:

Maricopa County Housing Department Joanne D'Amico 2024 North 7th Street, Suite 101 Phoenix, AZ 85006-2155

By ___________________________

-----------------------

Office of Administrative Hearings 1400 West Washington, Suite 101 Phoenix, Arizona 85007 (602) 542-9826