# Brown v. Bangor Housing Authority

> Superior Court of Maine · January 13, 2006

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10808741

## Case

- **Court:** Superior Court of Maine
- **Decided:** January 13, 2006
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Jeffrey L. Hjelm
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10808741

## Opinion text

STATE O F MAINE SUPENOR COURT
PENOBSCOT, SS. CIVIL ACTION
Docket No. AP-05-6

Kristen M. Brown,
PlaintiffIAppellee
I
)
- - ...
rj&;.!->ji . . R L ? - --
P I ;
.
:;,
,-,.
, I
i suFE;z,;<,5r;;. ; ! j :-\,...y8,--
<- w

1
i
* " ,, I

Order on Appeal I
: :. I.:
!>$?I
" .,v
4,

-1.
:y
6
q<,,3p
d:):,.;F I
Bangor Housing Authority,
DefendantIAppellant

Bangor Housing Authority (BHA) appeals from a small claims judgment entered
in the District Court (R. Murray, J.) awarding Kristen M. Brown the sum of $1,332.30,
representing the amount of rent she paid to BHA in excess of the amount the court
concluded she should have been required to pay under a lease. The court has reviewed
the parties' submissions and the record on appeal. For the reasons set out below, the
court affirms the judgment.
In its judgment, the District Court issued findings of fact, and BHA does not
challenge them here.' The court found that Brown applied for public housing with BHA
in September 2001. Under applicable federal law, the amount of a tenant's monthly rent
is 30% of her adjusted gross income, but no less than $25. 42 U.S.C. 53 1437a(a)(l),
(3).* In Brown's application for housing with BHA, she stated that she would be
applying for TANF benefits. The same month that she filed that application, she was
advised that she would receive $363 in monthly TANF benefits beginning in October
2001. In November 2001, however, she was notified that she was not eligible for benefits
because her child did not live with her.

1
The record on appeal does not include a transcript of the trial testimony. The nature of
the issues raised on this appeal can be examined on the undisputed record in its present
form.
2
Section 1437a(a)(3) authorizes local public housing authorities such as BHA to impose
a minimum monthly rental payment of no more than $50. BHA's minimum monthly
rental charge is $25.
Beginning in late February 2002, Brown moved into public housing administered
by BHA. That tenancy was created by a lease that provided for monthly rental payments
of $157. However, from February through October, Brown had no income, and at some
point, she advised BHA of this ~ i t u a t i o n .Under
~ the applicable federal law, Brown thus
should have paid $25 per month. In November 2002, she began to receive monthly
TANF benefits of $303. Based on the renta! payment formula set out in federal law, her
monthly rent beginning that month should have been $108.90 (30% of the amount of the
TANF benefits). However, during the time period at issue, which was February 2002
through February 2003, Brown paid the full amount of rent quantified in the lease. The
District Court concluded that Brown was entitled to recover the amount of rent she paid
in excess of the limitations created by federal statute. On this basis, the court entered
judgment for Brown in the amount of $1,332.30. BHA appeals from this judgment.
The rental agreement contains two provisions governing the amount of monthly
rent. The first was the rental figure of $157, which is set out expressly. The second is
brought into the lease agreement through the provision that expressly incorporates any
applicable federal law that might conflict with other terms of the i n ~ t r u m e n t .As
~ the
District Court found, the amount of Brown's rent as determined by federal law was
different than the amount of rect required by the former term. This creates an ambiguity,
because the end result is a conflictirig set of provisions. BHA argues that the lease
instrument is not internally ambiguous because the source of one of the two conflicting
provisions is external to the lease contract. However, Section XI incorporates certain

In making this finding, the District Court referred to joint trial exhibit 4, which is a
schedule that lists Brown's monthly income. That schedule is dated October 4, 2002,
which is the end of the time period covered the income history. The court found that
Brown provided this informatior, to BHA although not in a form that the agency
prescribed.
4
Section Xi of the lease provided:

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, in the event any
provisions of this lease conflict with federal law governing public housing
agencies, including but not limited to those codified in 42 USC Section 1437 et
sea., or federal regulations promulgated thereunder, as amended or replaced from
time to time, such laws andlor regulations shall be controlling and incorporated
herein by reference.
federal law into that agreement by reference. One of those federal laws is the statute that
creates restrictions on the amount of monthly rent that a public housing authority tenant
may be required to pay. Thus, because of the structure of the lease agreement, the
quantitative terms of the federal statute are incorporated into the lease and consequently
create the ambiguity, which takes the form of an inconsistency with the reference to a
monthly lease obligation of $157.
Of the two terms that create the ambiguity, the controlling provision is the lower
amount of rent, which is calculated pursuant to section 1437a. Therefore,
notwithstanding the recital in the lease agreement that Brown's monthly rent would be
$157, the court correctly concluded that this amount was in excess of what the lease
actually required and that she was entitled to reimbursement for that difference.
BHA also contends that Brown is not entitled to a remedy under the federal
statutory law discussed above and under federal caselaw that examines that statute.
However, the judgment resulted from the District Court's examination of the tenns of the
lease, which itself incorporated the provisions of federal law that BHA contends do not
entitle Brown to relief. Thus, BHA's characterization of the foundation for the judgment
is not supported by the court's analysis.

The erltry shall be:
Judgment affirmed.

Dated: January 13, 2006
Date Filed 3/22/05 PENOBSCOT Docket No. pp
AP-2005-6
County

I *,-tion SMALL CLAIM APPEAL

ASSIGNED TO JUSTICE JEFFREY L. HJELM

i KRISTEN BROWN VS. BANGOR HOUSING AUTHORITY
Defendant's Attorney
PINE TREE LEGAL ASSISTANCE GROSS MINSKY MOGAL PA
6 1 MAIN STREET RM 4 1 23 WATER ST SUITE 4 0 0
BANGOR, ME. 0 4 4 0 1 P 0 BOX 917
BY: CARL E. KANDUTSCH, ESQ. BANGOR, ME. 04402
BY: EDWARD W. GOULD, ESQ.

Date of
, Entry
- -

A p p e a l from D i s t r i c t C o u r t , D i s t r i c t 111, D i v i s i o n o f S o u t h e r n P e n o b s c o t ,
B a n g o r , ME. ( S m a l l C l a i m s D o c k e t No. BANDC-SC-2004-189) The f o l l o w i n g
p l e a d i n g s w e r e r e c e i v e d and f i l e d .

S t a t e m e n t of C l a i m ( S m a l l C l a i m s )
A p p l i c a t i o n o f P l a i n t i f f t o P r o c e e d W i t h o u t Payment of F e e s M.R.Civ.P.
91, t o g e t h e r w i t h I n d i g e n c y A f f i d a v i t .
P l a i n t i f f ' s A p p l i c a t i o n t o P r o c e e d W i t h o u t Payment o f F e e s . Granted.
F i l i n g f e e i s waived.
E n t r y o f A p p e a r a n c e b y C a r l E. K a n d u t s c h , E s q . , f o r t h e P l a i n t i f f .
A c c e p t a n c e o f S e r v i c e on d e f e n d a n t ' s b e h a l f b y Edward G o u l d , Esq.
E n t r y o f A p p e a r a n c e b y Edward W. Gould, E s q . , f o r t h e D e f e n d a n t .
N o t i c e of Small C l a i m s Hearing.
E n t r y o f A p p e a r a n c e b y Edward W. Gould, E s q . , f o r t h e D e f e n d a n t .
C o u r t A l t e r n a t i v e D i s p u t e R e s o l u t i o n S e r v i c e , R e p o r t of Completed
Session - Small C l a i m s : Unresolved.
O r d e r - S m a l l C l a i m s H e a r i n g c o n t i n u e d . (Worth, J . )
N o t i c e of Small C l a i m s Hearing.
M o t i o n t o E x t e n d Time f o r F i l e P l a i n t i f f ' s B r i e f .
C o u r t ' s r u l i n g o n P l a i n t i f f ' s M o t i o n t o E x t e n d Time t o F i l e B r i e f .
M o t i o n t o E x t e n d Time f o r F i l e P l a i n t i f f ' s B r i e f .
C o u r t ' s r u l i n g o n P l a i n t i f f ' s M o t i o n t o E x t e n d Time t o F i l e B r i e f .
J o i n t E x h i b i t 1.
J o i n t E x h i b i t 2.
J o i n t Exhibit 4.
J o i n t Exhibit 5.
Defendant's Exhibit 1.
Defendant's Exhibit 3.
Exhibit 4.
Exhibit 5.
P l a i n t i f f ' s Brief t i l e d .
Brief of Defendant filed.
P l a i n t i f f ' s Reply B r i e f f i l e d .

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10808741. Public record. Not legal advice.