Lisa A. Curtis, Relator,

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2018).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A18-1158

Lisa A. Curtis,
Relator,

vs.

Cloquet/Carlton Housing and Redevelopment Authority,
Respondent.

Filed April 22, 2019
Affirmed
Kirk, Judge*

Cloquet/Carlton Housing and Redevelopment Authority

Gwen Updegraff, Legal Aid Service of Northeastern Minnesota, Duluth, Minnesota (for
relator)

Mary G. Dobbins, Landrum Dobbins LLC, Edina, Minnesota (for respondent)

Considered and decided by Schellhas, Presiding Judge; Worke, Judge; and Kirk,
Judge.

* Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to
Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.

2
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
KIRK, Judge
Relator appeals the termination of her Section 8 housing assistance by respondent
Cloquet/Carlton Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA), arguing that (1) her use of
Section 8 assistance to rent her sister’s home was not grounds for terminating her
assistance, and (2) the hearing officer’s decision was arbitrary and capricious. We affirm.
FACTS
Relator Lisa Curtis began renting her sister’s home in 2012. In 2015, relator applied
for Section 8 housing assistance with the HRA. In order to participate in the program, the
HRA required relator to attend an orientation. At the orientat ion, the HRA program
housing specialist explained the rules of the Section 8 program, including a participant’s
obligation to provide true and complete information to the HRA and the HRA’s prohibition
on renting from relatives. After being approved for th e program, relator signed a housing
voucher that also explained these rules. Relator claims that she missed the discussion of
the prohibition on renting from relatives and did not read the voucher before signing it.
Several days after receiving the vouche r, relator and her sister submitted a request
for tenancy approval to the HRA asking the HRA to approve relator’s tenancy at her sister’s
home. This request form also noted the prohibition on renting from relatives. The HRA
approved relator’s tenancy and began providing housing assistance in April 2015.
In February 2018, the HRA program housing specialist conducted an inspection of
relator’s home. During the inspection, the housing specialist discovered that relator was
renting from her sister. On Mar ch 9, 2018, the HRA issued a notice of termination for

3
relator’s Section 8 assistance based on relator’s violation of the program’s obligation to
provide true and complete information. Relator requested a hearing to challenge the
termination. After an in itial decision was vacated to allow relator to obtain counsel, a
hearing was held before an HRA hearing officer on May 14, 2018.
Relator appeared at the hearing with counsel. The HRA program housing specialist
testified that the obligation to provide tr ue and complete information and the prohibition
on renting from relatives were both explained at the orientation. The housing voucher and
request for tenancy approval were also introduced at the hearing. Relator testified that she
signed both documents w ithout reading them carefully and that she was unaware of the
prohibition on renting from relatives.
The hearing officer found that relator had violated her obligation to provide true and
complete information to the HRA by using her assistance to rent he r sister’s home. The
hearing officer concluded that the HRA’s termination of relator’s housing assistance was
authorized by law and affirmed the HRA’s decision.
This certiorari appeal follows.
D E C I S I O N
When a public housing authority takes evide nce, hears testimony, and makes a
determination to deny or terminate an individual’s Section 8 assistance, it acts in a quasi -
judicial capacity. Carter v. Olmsted Cty. Hous. & Redevelopment Auth., 574 N.W.2d 725,
729 (Minn. App. 1998). In general, quasi -judicial decisions made by an agency will be
upheld “unless they are unconstitutional, outside the agency’s jurisdiction, procedurally
defective, based on an erroneous legal theory, unsupported by substantial evidence, or

4
arbitrary and capricious.” Cole v. Metro. Council HRA, 686 N.W.2d 334, 336 (Minn. App.
2004) (quotation omitted). This court reviews an agency’s findings to discern whether they
support the decision but does not make credibility determinations or retry the facts.
Senior v. City of Edina, 547 N.W.2d 411, 416 (Minn. App. 1996). “The decision is to be
upheld if the lower tribunal furnished any legal and substantial basis for the action taken.”
Id. (quotation omitted).
A public housing authority is vested with the discretion to determine when the
termination of Section 8 assistance is appropriate. Dep’t of Hous. & Urban Dev. v. Rucker, 535 U.S. 125 , 136, 122 S. Ct. 1230, 1236 (2002). 24 C.F.R. § 982.55 2(c)(1)(i) (2018)
authorizes the HRA to terminate a participant’s Section 8 assistance if a family member
violates the program’s family obligations. A “family” includes a person or group of
persons “approved to reside in a unit with [Section 8] assistance.” 24 C.F.R. § 982.4(b)
(2018). One of the program’s family obligations requires that a family supply “true and
complete” information to the public housing authority. 24 C.F.R. § 982.551(b)(4) (2018).
The regulation also prohibits the use of housing assistance to rent from relatives. 24 C.F.R.
§ 982.306(d) (2018).
I. The record and the law support the hearing officer’s order affirming the
HRA’s termination of relator’s Section 8 assistance based on her failure to
provide true and complete information.

The HRA terminated relator’s Section 8 assistance for her failure to supply true and
complete information regarding the use of her housing assistance to rent her sister’s home.
Relator argues that her conduct is not grounds for termination because it amounts to mere
negligence.

5
At the termination hearing, and in the su bsequent written decision, the hearing
officer found that relator signed the Section 8 voucher that explained a participant’s
obligation to provide true and complete information to the HRA and the program’s
prohibition on renting from relatives. By signin g this document, relator acknowledged
these requirements. The voucher also informed relator that failure to provide true and
complete information to the HRA was a ground for termination. The hearing officer further
noted that relator signed the request f or tenancy approval that similarly explained the
prohibition on renting from relatives.
The hearing officer ultimately concluded that the “HRA’s policy, HUD forms, and
Federal Regulation all indicate that rental assistance cannot be provided to an owner w ho
is a family member,” and that by renting from her sister, relator violated her obligation to
provide the HRA true and complete information. This decision is supported by the record
and the law.
II. The hearing officer’s decision is not arbitrary and capricious.

Relator also argues that the hearing officer’s decision was arbitrary and capricious
because her decision did not consider the circumstances of relator’s case. 24 C.F.R.
§ 982.552(c)(2) allows the consideration of circumstances in deciding whether to terminate
Section 8 assistance:
(2) Consideration of circumstances . In determining whether
to deny or terminate assistance because of action or failure to
act by members of the family:

(i) The PHA may consider all relevant circumstances
such as the seriousness of the case, the extent of participation
or culpability of individual family members, mitigating

6
circumstances related to the disability of a family member, and
the effects of denial or termination of assistance on other
family members who were not involved in the action or failure.

But in Peterson v. Wash . Cty. Hous. & Redevelopment Auth., we held that “w hile
the hearing officer may consider mitigating factors, the regulations do not require it.” 805
N.W.2d 558, 564 (Minn. App. 2011), review denied (Minn. Oct. 26, 2011). Thus, because
consideration of mitigating factors is permissive, the hearing officer’s decision is not
arbitrary and capricious because she declined to consider any mitigating factors.
Affirmed.