In the Matter of Walter Smith’s Termination of Section 8 Benefits.

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by
Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A22-0063

In the Matter of Walter Smith’s Termination of Section 8 Benefits.

Filed November 21, 2022
Affirmed
Florey, Judge*

St. Paul Public Housing Agency

Laura Jelinek, Southern Minnesota Regional Legal Services, Inc., St. Paul, Minnesota (for
relator Walter Smith)

Lindsey M. Olson, St. Paul City Attorney, John Stechmann, Sean D. Whatley, Assistant
City Attorneys, St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent Public Housing Agency of the City of
St. Paul)

Considered and decided by Larkin, Presiding Judge; Reilly, Judge; and Florey,
Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
FLOREY, Judge
In this certiorari appeal from the termination of his Section 8 public housing
assistance, relator argues that the hearing officer’s decision (1) is not supported by
substantial evidence, (2) is arbitrary and capricious, and (3) misapplied the law because an
unintentional fire is not a “serious or repeated lease violation.” We affirm.

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

2
FACTS
Relator Walter Smith received housing assistance from respondent Public Housing
Agency of the City of Saint Paul (PHA ). PHA terminated relator’s housing benefits ,
determining that fire damage to his apartment was a violation of relator’s family obligations
under the Section 8 program. Relator requested an informal hearing with PHA. A hearing
officer upheld PHA’s decision to terminate relator’s Section 8 benefits. Relator appeals by
certiorari.
Five months after leasing the apartment, relator began receiving housing assistance
from PHA. PHA operates a S ection 8 housing program, w hich is funded by the United
States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). 42 U.S.C § 1437 (2018).
The program pr ovides rental assistance to qualified low -income families. 42 U.S.C.
§ 1437f(a). On October 15, 2019, at around 9:02 p.m., the Sa int Paul Fire Department
(SPFD) was dispatched to relator’s unit in response to a report of smoke coming from the
unit. Firefighters found the apartment locked with black smoke coming from the door.
They forced entry and found a fire burning on the stove extending into the cabinets above.
Firefighters found no one in the unit.
After a fire investigator conducted an examination, he determined that the fire
started on the kitchen stove and most likely at or near the right rear burner. The ignition
source was a “hot stove electric element” and the fire was caused by food being ignited in
a pot. The fire investigator concluded that the fire was caused by unattended cooking which
he categorized as accidental . The fire caused $5,000 worth of damage to the unit and
3
$40,000 worth of damage to the apartment building. Relator returned to his apartment after
his neighbor notified him of the fire in his apartment.
Three days later, relator received a notice from Saint Paul Department of Safety and
Inspections (DSI) that his apartment was condemned as unfit for human habitation. DSI
explained the condemnation was based on the extensive fire damage. That same day a
volunteer caseworker from the American Red Cross informed PHA that relator was seeking
a new residence because relator’s unit would not be habitable for at least six months
because of the fire.
As a result, PHA reached out to relator’s landlord to obtain more information and
relator’s landlord forwarded the fire inspection report to PHA. After reviewing the
inspection report, PHA sent correspondence to relator informing him that his Section 8
voucher was terminated for violating provisions of his voucher agreement. Specifically,
that relator damaged the unit or premises beyond ordinary wear and tear. The letter also
informed relator of his right to appeal the decision before a hearing officer. Relator
requested an informal hearing to appeal the termination.
On November 4, 2021, the matter came before a hearing officer. PHA presented its
case first and argued that relator had negligently caused a fire in his apartment through
unattended cooking which led to condemnation of the unit. PHA referenced the fire
investigation report to support its argument. The director of the Housing Choice Voucher
Program testified that he considered mitigating circumstances here but that the seriousness
of the violation outweighed mitigating factors.
4
Relator presented his case and argued that he was not negligent because he does not
cook and instead has a personal care assistant (PCA ) cook for him. Relator asserted that
the fire was caused because of a maintenance failure. Relator’s mental health case worker
testified that she met with relator weekly and was present with him the day of the fire from
2:00 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. She noted that relator’s apartment had maintenance issues but was
unsure how the fire started. As a result, the hearing officer upheld PHA’s decision to
terminate relator’s Section 8 assistance. Relator appeals by certiorari.
DECISION
“We will uphold a housing authority’s quasi-judicial decision to terminate a
participant’s housing benefits unless we conclude that the authority’s decision is
unconstitutional, outside [PHA’s] jurisdiction, procedurally defective, based on an
erroneous legal theory, unsupported by substantial evidence, or arbitrary and capricious.”
Peterson v. Washington Cnty. Hous. & Redev. Auth., 805 N.W.2d 558, 561 (Minn. App.
2011) (quotation omitted).
A quasi-judicial decision not subject to the Administrative Procedure Act is
reviewed on writ of certiorari by reviewing the record to determine “whether the order or
determination in a particular case was arbitrary, oppressive, unreasonable, fraudulent,
under an erroneous theory of law, or without any evidence to support it.” Dietz v. Dodge
Cnty., 487 N.W.2d 237, 239 (Minn.1992) (quotation omitted). It is not the role of this court
to retry facts or make credibility determinations. Senior v. City of Edina, 547 N.W.2d 411,
416 (Minn. App. 1996). This court will uphold the agency’s decision if it provided “any
5
legal and substantial basis for the action taken.” Wilhite v. Scott C nty. Hous. & Redev.
Auth., 759 N.W.2d 252, 255 (Minn. App. 2009) (quotation omitted).
I. Substantial evidence supports the hearing officer’s decision to uphold PHA’s
termination of relator’s Section 8 assistance.

Relator argues that the hearing officer’s decision was not based on substantial
evidence because the officer only relied on the fire investigation report despite relator ’s
submitting significant evidence to support his case. We are not persuaded.
Under Minnesota law, “the substantial-evidence standard addresses the
reasonableness of what the agency did on the basis of the evidence before it.” In re
Expulsion of A.D., 883 N.W.2d 251, 259 (Minn. 2016) (quotation omitted). “Substantial
evidence is defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion . . . .” Cannon v. Minneapolis Police Dep’t, 783 N.W.2d
182, 189 (Minn. App. 2010) (quotation omitted). We defer to the agency’s determinations
“regarding conflicts in testimony, the weight given to expert testimony, and the inferences
to be drawn from testimony.” Id. Considerable judicial deference is given to
administrative fact-finding, and the burden t o prove that a decision is unsupported by
substantial evidence is on the relator. CUP Foods, Inc. v. Minneapolis, 633 N.W.2d 557,
563 (Minn. App. 2001), rev. denied (Minn. Nov. 13, 2001). Further, “[i]f an administrative
agency engages in reasoned decision-making , the court will affirm, even though it may
have reached a different conclusion had it been a fact[-]finder.” Cable Commc’n Bd. v.
Nor-W. Cable Commc’n P’ship, 356 N.W.2d 658, 669 (Minn. 1984) (quotation omitted).
6
Based on the record, evidence and caselaw, there was substantial evidence to
support the hearing officer’s decision to uphold the termination of relator’s Section 8
assistance.
A. Fire investigation report
At the hearing, relator mainly argued that the fire investigation report was
inauthentic and that SPFD intentionally sabotaged his apartment by placing pots and pans
along the stove and cabinets. The hearing officer determined that relator’s testimony was
not credible and stated, “nothing in the record suggests a basis for the St. Paul Fire
Department to submit a false fire report in this case.”
Relator also argues that the fire investigation report was hearsay evidence and that
it should not have been solely relied on. The general rule for the use of hearsay in
administrative proceedings is “in the absence of a special statute, an administrative agency
cannot, at least over objection, rest its findings of fact solely upon hearsay evidence which
is inadmissible in a judicial proceeding.” State ex rel. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 276 v. Dep’t
of Ed., 256 N.W.2d 619, 627 (Minn. 1977) (quotation omitted). Here, there is a special
regulation which allows a hearing officer to consider evidence “without regard to
admissibility under the rules of evidence applicable to judicial proceedings.” 24 C.F.R.
§ 982.555(e)(5) (2022). For that reason, the hearing officer’s reliance on the fire
investigation report in making his determination was permissible.
Relator also argues that his due-process rights were violated because he did not have
a chance to cross-examine the fire investigator. This argument does not apply here. Under
federal regulations that govern PHA’s hearings, relator is only allowed to cross-examine
7
witnesses who were present at the informal hearing. 24 C.F.R. § 982.555(e)(5). Here,
PHA did not violate relator’s constitutional rights when it did not call the fire investigator
as a witness. See Wilhite, 759 N.W.2d at 252 (holding that Section 8 participant’s
constitutional right to confront and cross-examine witnesses at an informal hearing was not
violated when housing authority did not call participant’s landlord or townhouse manager
as a witness to testify ). Thus, relator’s right to confront and cross-examine the fire
investigator at the hearing was not violated.
The hearing officer’s decision appropriately determined the fire investigation report
to be the best and most reliable evidence in the record. SPFD, a neutral third party,
prepared the report. The report provides specific and detailed information on what
occurred the night of the fire. According to the report, the fire started on the kitchen stove,
most likely at or near the right rear burner. The ignition source was a stove electric element
and the first fuel ignited was probably food or cooking oil in a pot. The fire investigator
concluded that the action that brought these items together was unattended cooking. The
report estimated damage to the property in the amount of $40,000 and $5,000 worth of
damage to the contents. After reviewing the report, the hearing officer determined that the
report was reliable. We defer to an agency’s fact-finding. CUP Foods, Inc., 633 N.W.2d
at 563. As a result, the hearing officer properly concluded that the fire investigation report
is credible and reliable to support PHA’s decision.
B. Consideration of relator’s evidence
Next, relator argues that despite the significant evidence he provided, the hearing
officer improperly rejected his evidence. Relator’s argument is misguided. Relator
8
submitted into evidence letters to elected officials and government entities and letters of
support from case workers about the housing inspections. The hearing officer considered
the evidence and determined that “many assertions contained within the documents
authored by relator are not reliable as they contain scattershot unsubstantiated allegations
against numerous individuals.” Thus, the hearing officer did consider relator’s evidence
but found his “assertions” to be unreliable.
C. Mechanical repairs
Relator argues that the fire stemmed from a maintenance failure. Relator testified
that he provided supporting documents of his unit experiencing housing quality standard
deficiencies such as frost build up around the A/C unit. He also shared concerns about his
thermostat and how it looks loose. The hearing officer considered the repair issues but
ultimately determined that the preponderance of the evidence supported that the fire was
caused by unattended cooking.
Based on the record before us, there is substantial evidence to support the hearing
officer’s decision to uphold PHA’s termination of relator’s Section 8 benefits.
II. The hearing officer’s decision was not arbitrary and capricious.

Relator argues that the hearing officer’s decision is arbitrary and capricious. He
argues that the hearing officer failed to explain why he discredited relator’s and case
worker’s testimony as well as evidence of relator’s rental history. We are not persuaded.
An agency’s decision is arbitrary and capricious “if the agency: (a) relied on factors
not intended by the legislature; (b) entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the
problem; (c) offered an explanation that runs counter to the evidence . . . .” Citizens
9
Advocating Responsible Dev. v. Kandiyohi Cnty. Bd. of Com’rs, 713 N.W.2d 817, 832
(Minn. 2006). Further, an “ agency’s conclusions are not arbitrary and capricious so long
as there is a rational basis between the facts found and the choice made.” In re Rev. of
2005 Ann. Automatic Adjustment of Charges for All Elec. & Gas Utilities, 768 N.W.2d
112, 120 (Minn. 2009). “If there is room for two opinions on a matter, the [c]omission’s
decision is not arbitrary and capricious, even though the court may believe that an
erroneous decision was reached.” Id.
The hearing officer considered both the testimony of relator and his caseworker.
Relator testified that he does not cook and instead has his PCA cook for him. Relator’s
caseworker confirmed that he has a PCA, but was unable to confirm whether relator cooks
at all. She testified that on the day of the fire, she brought relator a salad around 2:00 p.m.
and was with him until 3:30 p.m. The hearing officer determined that relator’s testimony
was not credible. After careful consideration, the hearing officer concluded that relator
“damaged the premises by allowing a fire to start due to unattended cooking.” Based on
the record before us, the hearing officer’s determination that relator was responsible for the
fire was rational and not arbitrary and capricious.
Relator also argues that the hearing officer disregarded his rental report that shows
he does not have lease violations. Under federal regulations, PHA can terminate a
participant’s Section 8 assistance for violating “any family obligations under the program”
24 C.F.R.§ 985.552(c)(1)(i). The record supports the hearing officer’s determination that
relator violated his family obligations when his unit was damaged beyond ordinary and
tear. 24 C.F.R. § 982.404(b)(1)(iii). The record also reflects that relator’s landlord did not
10
issue a formal notice of lease violation because relator’s unit was condemned by the city
as unhabitable. Under the circumstances, the hearing officer did not err in disregarding
relator’s rental report showing no lease violations. The hearing officer’s decision therefore
was not arbitrary or capricious.
III. The hearing officer correctly applied the applicable law and policy when it
determined that relator committed serious violations of his lease and his
obligations under the Section 8 program.

Recipients of Section 8 assistance are required to adhere to the obligations governed
by the Section 8 Tenant- Based Assistance: Housing Choice Voucher Program. 24 C.F.R.
§ 982.551. Under the family obligations of the program, relator is prohibited from
committing serious lease violations and prohibited from damaging his unit beyond
“ordinary wear and tear.” 24 C.F.R. §§ 982.551(c)-(e); 982.404(b)(1)(iii). Relator’s
assertion that HUD regulations must be interpreted according to Minnesota law is
unsupported by applicable legal authorities. This court interprets HUD regulations
according to their plain language. Wilhite, 759 N.W.2d at 255.
Here, applying the plain language of the federal regulation, relator violated his
family obligations when a fire occurred in his unit because of unattended cooking which
caused damage beyond ordinary wear and tear. According to the fire investigation report,
the fire caused $5,000 worth of damage to the unit and $40,000 in damage to the apartment
building. PHA’s termination of relator’s Section 8 assistance is supported by the federal
regulations that govern the Section 8 voucher program. Thus, the hearing officer correctly
applied the law governing PHA’s determination that relator violated his family obligations.

11

IV. PHA considered mitigating factors even though it was not required to do so.

PHA also considered whether mitigating factors existed before terminating relator’s
assistance. This court held that while PHA may consider mitigating factors, PHA is not
required to do so. Peterson, 805 N.W.2d at 563. PHA may consider all relevant
circumstances. The director of the housing voucher program testified that in every Section
8 case, he reviews the file at three stages: (1) before PHA drafts a termination; (2) once the
hearing is requested; and (3) at the actual hearing.
In this case, the information first presented to the director justified a termination
moving forward because of the significant damage to the apartment caused by relator.
Once relator requested the hearing, the director tried to reach out to relator, but relator
declined to talk. At the hearing, the director reviewed the file again and did not find new
information to consider mitigating factors. The director concluded that the seriousness of
the violation outweighed mitigating factors.
Based on the record and applicable legal authority, the hearing officer correctly
upheld PHA’s decision to terminate relator’s Section 8 assistance.
Affirmed.