By Zach Gorchow
Gongwer News Service
A Ypsilanti woman who contends the Michigan State Housing Development Authority improperly terminated her housing subsidy will get another chance to make her case in court.
Brianna Frye contends she never received notice from MSHDA of its termination of her subsidy. Absent a termination notice, she argues, she was unable to avail herself of administrative appeals.
Frye says about Jan. 20, 2023, she received notice from her landlord that she owed $217. She was then told MSHDA had terminated her voucher in August. MSHDA denied appeals, saying the window for Frye to do so had lapsed. She says this is the first she knew of a problem.
Frye sued in the Ingham Circuit Court, which dismissed the case, saying it did not have jurisdiction, contending Frye did not have a contested case due to having her request for a hearing ruled untimely.
The 14A District Court issued an order of eviction, and Frye had to leave her housing.
Frye appealed to the Court of Appeals, which dismissed the case in a short order.
She then appealed to the Supreme Court.
In an order dated Friday and released Saturday, the Supreme Court unanimously remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for consideration.
“Ms. Frye lost her housing subsidy because the issuing agency claimed, without proof, that it had provided notice and she had not timely appeals – and the circuit court summarily agreed,” Frye’s attorneys said in her appeal to the Supreme Court. “It failed to provide Ms. Frye the opportunity to brief the issue or to grant her request for further development of the record. In so doing, the court held Ms. Frye to a higher standard than it held the agency, and in the process, violated her right to judicial review of a contested case under the Administrative Procedures Act. It also violated her constitutional right to procedural due process prior to the termination of a property interest – one that enabled her to afford an apartment for herself and her son.”
Frye’s appeal seeks a court order for an evidentiary hearing on whether her voucher should have been terminated or a remand on the issue of whether she received notice.
Gongwer News Service
A Ypsilanti woman who contends the Michigan State Housing Development Authority improperly terminated her housing subsidy will get another chance to make her case in court.
Brianna Frye contends she never received notice from MSHDA of its termination of her subsidy. Absent a termination notice, she argues, she was unable to avail herself of administrative appeals.
Frye says about Jan. 20, 2023, she received notice from her landlord that she owed $217. She was then told MSHDA had terminated her voucher in August. MSHDA denied appeals, saying the window for Frye to do so had lapsed. She says this is the first she knew of a problem.
Frye sued in the Ingham Circuit Court, which dismissed the case, saying it did not have jurisdiction, contending Frye did not have a contested case due to having her request for a hearing ruled untimely.
The 14A District Court issued an order of eviction, and Frye had to leave her housing.
Frye appealed to the Court of Appeals, which dismissed the case in a short order.
She then appealed to the Supreme Court.
In an order dated Friday and released Saturday, the Supreme Court unanimously remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for consideration.
“Ms. Frye lost her housing subsidy because the issuing agency claimed, without proof, that it had provided notice and she had not timely appeals – and the circuit court summarily agreed,” Frye’s attorneys said in her appeal to the Supreme Court. “It failed to provide Ms. Frye the opportunity to brief the issue or to grant her request for further development of the record. In so doing, the court held Ms. Frye to a higher standard than it held the agency, and in the process, violated her right to judicial review of a contested case under the Administrative Procedures Act. It also violated her constitutional right to procedural due process prior to the termination of a property interest – one that enabled her to afford an apartment for herself and her son.”
Frye’s appeal seeks a court order for an evidentiary hearing on whether her voucher should have been terminated or a remand on the issue of whether she received notice.
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://www.legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
