Housing agency slams claims in class-action bid by tenant

A public housing tenant is "ill suited" to represent a proposed class of people in a federal lawsuit she filed against the Metropolitan Housing Alliance in Little Rock, the agency's attorneys said in a court response this week.

Brenda Glover filed a lawsuit against the housing agency in November 2014, arguing that she had proof her rent was scheduled to be paid in an agreement signed by her landlord but that the housing authority stripped her of her Section 8 housing voucher based on a notice-to-vacate letter anyway.

The housing agency has since reinstated Glover's voucher.

Glover's attorneys filed a motion seeking class-action status last month, saying the housing agency's policies "allow families to lose their benefits based upon the uncontested word of tenants' landlords."

A response to that motion filed Tuesday on behalf of the housing agency asks the judge to deny Glover's request.

N.M. Norton and J. Mark Davis, attorneys with Wright, Lindsey & Jennings LLP, are representing the housing agency.

"MHA asserts that neither plaintiff nor the proposed class state viable claims against MHA because [the] plaintiff's claims are founded on an incorrect statement of applicable federal regulations and MHA's Administrative Plan, as well as an incomplete and confusing statement of the facts surrounding Glover's voucher termination by MHA," the response said.

The case is in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division, before Judge J. Leon Holmes. There is no timeline for him to make a ruling on the class-action request.

When Glover's household size shrank, the amount of her federally subsidized housing voucher administered by the housing agency was decreased, increasing the amount of rent for which she was responsible.

Glover arranged to be moved to a smaller unit where the majority of her rent would be covered by her housing voucher, but she wasn't able to move until September. That left her having to come up with the bigger portion of the rent for July and August.

After borrowing from friends and relatives to pay July's rent, Glover reached an agreement with her landlord to take August's rent out of her security deposit, according to Glover's lawsuit. When the landlord refused to give her the remainder of her deposit, Glover filed a complaint with the state attorney general's office, the lawsuit said.

The landlord then reneged on the signed agreement and issued a 10-day notice to vacate letter, also providing the housing agency with a copy. The next day, the agency gave notice to Glover that her housing assistance had been terminated.

Glover appealed that termination and told agency employees during an informal appeal hearing that the landlord reneged on his agreement to take August's rent out of her security deposit.

Glover admitted to not paying August's rent, so the housing agency decided to uphold her voucher termination despite the purported agreement she had with her landlord, the agency's response to the class action request states.

"Glover asserts that her voucher benefits cannot be terminated based on a landlord's use of Arkansas' Criminal Eviction Statute. MHA concurs. However, that is not why MHA terminated Glover's benefits," the response said. "Glover somehow mistakenly believes that federal regulations prohibit MHA from considering landlord eviction notices in exercising its decision to terminate voucher benefits. They do not."

The housing agency denies violating federal law or U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development regulations. The Little Rock-based agency administers HUD programs with federal funding. The agency, formerly known as the Little Rock Housing Authority, manages 902 units and administers more than 2,000 Section 8 housing vouchers.

Glover's attorney, David Slade with Carney, Bates & Pulliam PLLC, said the agency has stripped 964 other families of Section 8 benefits since October 2011 based solely on having received a notice-to-vacate letter. He called the eviction policy "pervasive."

"These landlords are not present at pre-termination hearings, so tenants may never directly challenge their word through cross-examination. Nonetheless, MHA treats this hearsay evidence as dispositive, and any attempt by the plaintiff or class members to challenge the notice to vacate is futile," the original lawsuit complaint said.

Metro on 01/16/2016

Upcoming Events