Rivera v. Reading Housing Authority
819 F. Supp. 1323, 1993 WL 137316, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 737 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A local public housing authority's policy requiring minor applicants to obtain a judicial decree of emancipation as a condition for admission does not violate the U.S. Housing Act, HUD regulations, or the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, provided the policy is consistent with sound management practices and passes rational basis review.
Facts:
- The Reading Housing Authority (RHA) is a Pennsylvania public housing authority that develops and operates low-income housing projects, receiving federal assistance under the U.S. Housing Act of 1937 and adhering to HUD regulations and guidelines.
- In March 1991, RHA revised its Admissions and Occupancy Policy, effective July 23, 1991, to include an express requirement that minor applicants (under eighteen years of age) obtain a judicial decree of emancipation to be eligible for RHA-administered public housing.
- Carmen Rivera, born January 17, 1975, had lived with her paternal grandparents in Puerto Rico and then in Allentown, Pennsylvania, before moving with David Gonzalez to Reading, Pennsylvania.
- In February 1991, Ms. Rivera and Mr. Gonzalez, both minors, moved to Reading and applied for public assistance, becoming eligible for a cash assistance grant, food stamps, and medical assistance.
- On May 21, 1991, Ms. Rivera and Mr. Gonzalez filed a written application for public housing with RHA; Ms. Rivera was subsequently placed on a waiting list pending RHA's receipt of a judicial decree of emancipation.
- On August 9, 1991, RHA sent Ms. Rivera a letter informing her that she needed to obtain a judicial decree of emancipation to be admitted to public housing.
- Ms. Rivera did not seek or submit an emancipation decree; instead, her attorney wrote to RHA on her behalf, objecting to the policy and arguing that minors could enter enforceable contracts for “necessaries” under Pennsylvania law.
- On September 9, 1991, RHA issued a Notification of Ineligibility, denying Ms. Rivera's application for admission to public housing due to her failure to comply with the policy requiring an emancipation decree.
Procedural Posture:
- On December 23, 1991, plaintiffs, including Carmen Rivera, filed this action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, challenging a policy of the Reading Housing Authority (RHA).
- On April 3, 1992, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification.
- On April 27, 1992, the District Court denied the motion for class certification.
- Plaintiffs' counsel subsequently filed stipulations for voluntary dismissal, without prejudice, of the claims of two of the three original named plaintiffs, resulting in Carmen Rivera being the sole remaining plaintiff.
- Following the completion of discovery, the parties determined that the facts necessary to resolve plaintiff Rivera’s claims were not in dispute and agreed to submit the action to the court on cross-motions for summary judgment.
- On August 13, 1992, plaintiff Carmen Rivera filed a motion for summary judgment.
- On August 28, 1992, defendants RHA filed a cross-motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, a motion to dismiss.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Reading Housing Authority's policy, requiring minor applicants under the age of eighteen to obtain a judicial decree of emancipation as a condition for public housing admission, violate the U.S. Housing Act of 1937, HUD regulations prohibiting categorical limitations, or the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by creating an irrebuttable presumption?
Opinions:
Majority - Van Antwerpen, District Judge
No, the Reading Housing Authority's policy requiring minor applicants to provide a judicial decree of emancipation does not violate the U.S. Housing Act, HUD regulations, or the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court reasoned that the Housing Act aims to vest maximum responsibility in local housing agencies to promote efficient management and ensure rental collection, which the RHA's policy supports. HUD regulations (24 C.F.R. §§ 960.204(c)(1), 960.205(a)) prohibit 'automatic denial' to 'otherwise eligible applicants' or criteria based on 'imputed attributes,' but the RHA's policy is not an automatic denial as emancipated minors can apply, and it addresses the legal reality of contract enforceability, not an imputed characteristic. Crucially, the HUD Public Housing Occupancy Handbook, § 4-2, explicitly authorizes local housing authorities to 'set a minimum age for admission to avoid entering into leases which would not be valid or enforceable under applicable law,' directly supporting RHA's approach. Under Pennsylvania law, contracts with minors are voidable, except for 'necessaries,' and housing is not per se a 'necessary' if a parent or guardian is able and willing to provide it. A judicial emancipation decree specifically determines a minor's capacity to contract, thereby ensuring the enforceability of a lease. The court affirmed that a state court procedure exists in Pennsylvania for minors to obtain such a decree. Finally, the court found the 'irrebuttable presumption doctrine' inapplicable to social welfare programs and applied a rational basis standard to the Due Process claim. RHA's policy, by ensuring enforceable lease agreements and promoting sound fiscal management, has a rational justification and thus does not deny due process rights.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the significant discretion granted to local public housing authorities in establishing eligibility requirements for federal housing programs. It affirms that such policies, even when impacting minors' access to housing, are valid if they are rationally related to the program's goals of sound fiscal management and property administration. The ruling clarifies that federal anti-discrimination prohibitions in housing do not override state contract law regarding minors, especially when federal administrative guidance supports such considerations. Furthermore, it reinforces the principle that social welfare classifications are subject to the less stringent rational basis review under the Due Process Clause, limiting the application of the 'irrebuttable presumption' doctrine in this context.
