M. Rodriguez v. PA Housing Finance Agency

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Maria Rodriguez, :

Petitioner :

:

v. : No. 873 C.D. 2024

:

Pennsylvania Housing : Submitted: October 7, 2025

Finance Agency, :

Respondent :

BEFORE: HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge

HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge

HONORABLE MATTHEW S. WOLF, Judge

OPINION

BY JUDGE McCULLOUGH FILED: November 19, 2025

Maria Rodriguez (Petitioner) petitions for review of the Pennsylvania

Housing Finance Agency’s (Agency) June 6, 2024 Final Agency Decision

(Decision) affirming the denial of her mortgage assistance request. On appeal,

Petitioner argues the Agency erred in finding her ineligible to receive mortgage loan

reinstatement assistance from the Pennsylvania Homeowner Assistance Fund

program (PAHAF). She further argues that the Agency deprived her of due process

by not providing her with a hearing pursuant to 2 Pa.C.S. § 504. After review, we

affirm.

I. Background

The facts and procedural history of this case may be summarized as

follows. Petitioner obtained a mortgage on her primary residence in March of 2005.

The mortgage became delinquent on April 12, 2005. While her mortgage loan

matured in 2012, her lender did not initiate foreclosure proceedings until 2021, when

he sought payment of over $69,000 which was owed on the mortgage.

The PAHAF program is part of a federal program administered by the

Agency which is designed to assist homeowners with, inter alia, mortgage loan

reinstatement. Petitioner applied for PAHAF mortgage loan reinstatement

assistance on April 25, 2023. (Supplemental Reproduced Record (S.R.R.) at 93.)

Petitioner requested mortgage assistance for the property located at 110 E. Tioga,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19134 (the Property). (S.R.R. at 21, 138.) Petitioner’s

application stated that she was the owner-occupant of a primary residence securing

the mortgage loan for which she was seeking assistance. In addition, Petitioner

stated that she had experienced a qualified financial hardship after January 21, 2020

(including a hardship that began before January 21, 2020, and continued after that

date). (S.R.R. at 21.) She also indicated that she was negotiating with the mortgagee

for a loan modification which would extend the mortgage term for an additional 12

years. (S.R.R. at 2.)

On February 1, 2024, the PAHAF Committee denied Petitioner’s

application, stating:

The [PAHAF] Program conducted a compliance review of

[Petitioner’s] application and identified the following

irregularities: [] COVID-related financial hardship - The

initial date of delinquency occurred in 2005, and the loan

matured in 2012, making the note due and payable prior to

the COVID-19 pandemic. Due to the nature of the

discrepancy, [Petitioner’s] application has been

determined ineligible for PAHAF assistance.

(S.R.R. at 115) (emphasis added).

On March 4, 2024, Petitioner appealed the PAHAF Committee’s denial

of her request. Petitioner included in her appeal a loan modification agreement as

supporting documentation and stated in her appeal that the loan modification was

contingent on Petitioner obtaining a PAHAF award of $50,000. (S.R.R. at 109-12.)

2

On June 6, 2024, the Agency denied Petitioner’s appeal. In its

Decision, the Agency stated that to be eligible for mortgage reinstatement assistance

and forward mortgage assistance, an applicant must have “experienced a financial

hardship after January 21, 2020 (including a hardship that began before January 21,

2020 and continued after that date).” (S.R.R. at 2.) The Decision then stated:

Based on a review of the mortgage securing the loan for

which you are seeking assistance, the loan originated on

March 12, 2005. The maturity date of your loan is

December 12, 2012. The initial delinquency occurred on

April 12, 2005.

The purpose of [] PAHAF, is a housing related program

funded by the U.S. Department of the Treasury to assist

Pennsylvania homeowners facing financial hardship due

to the COVID-19 pandemic that began after January 21,

2020. Because your application for mortgage

reinstatement assistance and forward mortgage assistance

was made on a loan which fell into default in April 2005,

which was 15 years prior to the COVID-19 Emergency

(sic). The original terms of the loan stipulated a maturity

date of December 12, 2012. Therefore, there were no

monthly payments that came due during the COVID-19

Emergency. And although [Petitioner] has a conditional

loan modification, based on approval for PAHAF

assistance, the delinquency occurred in April 2005 and the

loan matured on December 12, 2012, which were both

prior to the Covid Emergency. Consequently, your

application for assistance was properly denied.

(S.R.R. at 1-3) (emphasis added).

II. Issues

Petitioner raises two issues before this Court. The first is whether the

Agency’s Decision denying Petitioner’s PAHAF mortgage reinstatement assistance,

which she claims was made solely on the grounds that Petitioner’s mortgage matured

before 2020, was arbitrary and capricious. Petitioner asserts that no such limitation

3

was promulgated by the United States Department of the Treasury or the Agency’s

plan for COVID-19 funding that it submitted to the Treasury. (Petitioner’s Br. at 9-

12.) The second issue is whether the Agency denied Petitioner her constitutional

right to due process by failing to provide her with a hearing. Id. at 12.

III. Discussion1

A. The PAHAF Mortgage Assistance Program

PAHAF is a federally funded program established under the

Coronavirus Economic Stabilization Act (Corona Virus Act). See 15 U.S.C.

§ 9058d. In Section 9058d(c)(1) of the Act, Congress declared:

(c) Establishment of Fund

(1) Establishment; qualified expenses

There is established in the [United States (U.S.)]

Department of the Treasury [(Treasury)] a Homeowner

Assistance Fund [(HAF)] to mitigate financial

hardships associated with the coronavirus pandemic

by providing such funds as are appropriate by

subsection (a) to eligible entities for the purpose of

preventing homeowner mortgage delinquencies,

defaults, foreclosures, loss of utilities or home energy

services, and displacements of homeowners

experiencing financial hardship after January 21,

2020, through qualified expenses related to mortgages

and housing, which include—

(B) financial assistance to allow a

homeowner to reinstate a mortgage or to pay

other housing related costs related to a period

of forbearance, delinquency, or default; . . . .

1

“[This Court’s] review is limited to whether constitutional rights were violated, an error

of law [was] committed, or the findings of fact are not supported by substantial evidence.” Fish

v. Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency, 931 A.2d 764, 767 n.3 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007).

4

15 U.S.C. § 9058(c)(1)(B) (emphasis added). Section 102-F of The Fiscal Code2

provides that the Agency shall administer the HAF in Pennsylvania. See 72 P.S.

§ 102-F.

Pursuant to the authority granted by the Pennsylvania General

Assembly, the Agency drafted the PAHAF’s Overarching Program Policy Manual

(Program Policy). See S.R.R. at 158-202. The Program Policy is based on Treasury

HAF Guidance, applicable federal regulations, and the PAHAF Plan. According to

the Program Policy: “The Policies and Procedures for [PAHAF] are provided to

assist program staff, subgrantees, associated partners, and venders in implementing

and managing the [Treasury] [HAF].” (S.R.R. at 161.)

B. Whether the Agency’s Denial of Petitioner’s PAHAF Mortgage

Reinstatement Assistance was Arbitrary and Capricious

Petitioner argues that she is eligible for PAHAF assistance and that the

Agency’s denial of her application exceeded the Agency’s authority for the disbursal

of HAF funds under federal law and guidance. (Petitioner’s Br. at 12.) Specifically,

she argues that:

[the Agency] expressly represented to [Treasury] that

eligibility simply requires that “[h]omeowner must have

experienced a Qualified Financial Hardship after January

21, 2020 (including a hardship that began before January

21, 2020 but continued after that date).”

[The Agency] failed to properly disclose any limitation on

the use of HAF funds for balloons/matured loans to the

Department of the Treasury. In fact, [the Agency]

informed the Department of the Treasury in its plan that it

would offer both “financial assistance to allow a

homeowner to reinstate a mortgage or to pay other

2

Act of April 9, 1929, P.L. 343, as amended, added by Section 7 of the Act of June 30,

2021, P.L. 62, 72 P.S. § 102-F.

5

housing-related costs related to a period of forbearance,

delinquency or default” and “mortgage payment

assistance.” [] Petitioner’s defaulted mortgage balance

clearly falls under those categories because her lender was

offering an extension of the mortgage payment term upon

receipt of HAF funds.

Id. at 10 (emphasis in original).

Thus Petitioner asserts that the Agency denied her PAHAF application

solely on the grounds that her mortgage matured before 2020. She contends that the

Decision was arbitrary and capricious because no such limitation was promulgated

by the U.S. Treasury or the Agency’s plan for COVID-19 funding that it submitted

to the Treasury. (Petitioner’s Br. at 4.) In response, Respondent maintains that the

reason the Agency denied Petitioner’s application was because she did not provide

information consistent with having experienced a financial hardship associated with

the COVID-19 pandemic. (Respondents’ Br. at 9-11.) Respondent argues that the

Decision to deny Petitioner PAHAF assistance should be affirmed as a matter of law

because Petitioner did not demonstrate that she had a qualified financial hardship.

(Respondent’s Br. at 8.)

Based on our review of the submissions of the parties and the evidence

of record, we find that the Agency’s denial of Petitioner’s application was not

arbitrary and capricious. We note that the Agency’s initial denial of Petitioner’s

application stated that it had conducted a compliance review of Petitioner’s

application and identified an “irregularity” such that Petitioner had not established

that she met one of the program’s eligibility requirements. The Agency identified

the irregularity as a lack of evidence that Petitioner had suffered a “COVID-related

financial hardship.” (S.R.R. at 115.)

The Agency stated that in order to be eligible for PAHAF assistance,

an applicant must have “experienced a financial hardship after January 21, 2020

6

(including a hardship that began before January 21, 2020 and continued after that

date).” (S.R.R. at 1-3.) It stated that “[t]he purpose of the . . . program . . . was to

assist Pennsylvania homeowner’s facing financial hardship due to the COVID-19

pandemic . . . .” Id. (emphasis added). It further stated that Petitioner’s loan had

been in default for 15 years when the COVID-19 Emergency occurred, and “there

were no monthly payments that came due during the COVID-19 Emergency.” Id.

These statements, together with Petitioner’s failure to provide specific information

relating any “financial hardship due to the COVID-19 pandemic” make it clear that

the Agency did not deny her application solely on the grounds that her mortgage

matured before 2020.

The Program Policy provides that the purpose of the program is “[]to

mitigate financial hardships associated with the coronavirus pandemic to prevent

homeowner mortgage delinquencies, defaults, foreclosures, and displacements for

eligible Pennsylvania homeowners.” (S.R.R. at 161) (emphasis added). The

Program Policy defines the term “Qualified Financial Hardship” as:

a material reduction in income or a material increase in

living expenses associated with the Covid-19 pandemic

that has created or increased the risk of mortgage

delinquency, mortgage default, foreclosure, loss of

utilities or home energy services, or displacement for a

homeowner.

(S.R.R. at 167.) This definition is virtually identical to the definition of the term

“Financial hardship” found in the U.S. Treasury’s Homeowner Assistance Fund

Guidance at page 2. (June 12, 2023) (attached as Appendix B to Petitioner’s Brief.)

When Petitioner applied for PAHAF assistance, both the prescreen

acknowledgement and the application itself made clear that an applicant must

provide proof that he or she has experienced a financial hardship associated with the

COVID-19 pandemic in order to qualify for assistance. (S.R.R. at 70-71.) The

7

Program Overview portion of the application provided to Petitioner defines the

phrase “COVID-19 Qualified Financial Hardship” as “a material reduction in

income or material increase in living expenses that created or increased a risk of

mortgage delinquency, mortgage default or foreclosure that is associated with the

coronavirus pandemic.” (S.R.R. at 54-55.) (emphasis added).

The prescreen acknowledgment states “[t]o qualify, the household must

have experienced a financial hardship as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic after

January 21, 2020 (including a hardship that began before January 21, 2020 but

continued after that date). You will attest that this is true and provide a description

of the hardship.” (S.R.R. at 89) (emphasis added). In Petitioner’s prescreen

acknowledgment, in response to the question, “Did you or a member of your

household experience a financial hardship . . . as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic

after January 21, 2020 (including a hardship that began before January 21, 2020, but

continued after that date)?” Petitioner simply stated “Yes” without providing the

required description or explanation of her financial hardship. (S.R.R. at 87.)

In her application, Petitioner did indicate that due to the COVID-19

pandemic, her work hours were reduced. She also indicated that she lives with her

two adult sons and has incurred higher living expenses as a result of COVID-19 but

provided no further information. In addition, Petitioner provided her mortgage note,

an Act 91 Notice, Mortgage Information, and Manual Debt Verification forms from

her lender, Natasha A. Colon. (S.R.R. at 99-106, 151-57.) However, she did not

indicate how COVID-19 had contributed to her increased living expenses or explain

specifically how the pandemic had “created or increased a risk of mortgage

delinquency, mortgage default, foreclosure” as required by Program Policy and the

U.S. Treasury Guidance. (S.R.R. at 167.) As the Agency noted, no monthly

mortgage payments came due during the COVID-19 pandemic.

8

The documentation Petitioner provided indicated that her first payment

on the mortgage note was due April 12, 2005, and the mortgage term ended on

December 12, 2012. It also indicated that no payments were made on the mortgage

from April 12, 2005, to December 2020. Id. Therefore, not only did she not connect

her increased living expenses to the coronavirus pandemic, the information she

submitted in her application made clear that those increased expenses did not create

or increase her risk of delinquency, default, or foreclosure on a mortgage she had

held for approximately 15 years before the start of the pandemic and on which she

had never made a single payment.

As noted previously, the PAHAF Program Policy Manual defines

“Qualified Financial Hardship” as “a material reduction in income or a material

increase in living expenses associated with the Covid-19 pandemic that has created

or increased the risk of mortgage delinquency, default, foreclosure, loss of utilities

or home energy services or displacement for a homeowner.” (S.R.R. at 167)

(emphasis added). Therefore, we find that the Agency’s Decision was not arbitrary

and capricious because Petitioner failed to prove that she is eligible for assistance

under PAHAF as set forth in the Program Policy because she has failed to explain

or document how she has suffered a “Qualified Financial Hardship.”

C. Petitioner’s Due Process Claim

Petitioner argues that the Agency failed to provide her due process when

it denied her application without providing her a hearing, as required by 2 Pa.C.S.

§ 504. She claims that after she filed her appeal of the initial denial of her request,

“[the Agency] never followed up with her at all-not to request documentation, nor to

alert her that she could provide any documentation at a hearing.” (Petitioner’s Br. at

8.) Therefore, she argues that the Agency’s Decision should be reversed or, in the

alternative, the case should be remanded to the Agency for further consideration and

9

the opportunity for a hearing, so that Petitioner may show that she has satisfied all

necessary requirements to obtain a PAHAF award. Id. at 9.

The guarantee of due process, in Pennsylvania jurisprudence, emanates

from a number of provisions of the Declaration of Rights, particularly article I,

sections 1, 9, and 11 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, Pa. Const. art. I, §§ 1, 9, 11.

Lawson v. Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare, 744 A.2d 804, 806 (Pa.

Cmwlth. 2000). The constitutional right to due process is fully applicable in

proceedings before administrative tribunals. Soja v. Pennsylvania State Police, 455

A.2d 613, 615 (Pa. 1982); Lawson, 744 A.2d at 806. The fundamental requisites of

due process are adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard. Id.; Section 504 of

Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa.C.S. § 504. Section 504 of the Administrative

Agency Law, 2 Pa.C.S. § 504, provides:

No adjudication of a Commonwealth Agency shall be

valid as to any party unless he shall have been afforded

reasonable notice of a hearing and an opportunity to be

heard. All testimony shall be stenographically recorded

and a full and complete record shall be kept of the

proceedings.

2 Pa.C.S. § 504. See also Keystone Redevelopment Partners, LLC v. Pennsylvania

Gaming Control Board, 5 A.3d 448, 468 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (“Due process requires

a reasonable opportunity to meet and rebut evidence used by an administrative

agency.”). However, we have held that receiving an opportunity to be heard does

not require a hearing in every case.

In Independence Blue Cross v. Pennsylvania Insurance Department,

802 A.2d 715 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002), we stated:

This [C]ourt has held that where no factual issues are in

dispute, no evidentiary hearing is required under 2 Pa.C.S.

§ 504. Where there are no disputed facts, the motion

proceedings, including briefs and arguments by both

10

parties, provide ample opportunity for the parties to be

heard and the Administrative Agency Law requires no

more.

Id. at 720 (citations omitted) (emphasis added); see also United Healthcare Benefits

Trust v. Insurance Commissioner of Pennsylvania, 620 A.2d 81, 83 (Pa. Cmwlth.

1998) (“While 2 Pa.C.S. § 504 mandates that a party receive an opportunity to be

heard, that opportunity does not require the equivalent of an evidentiary hearing. This

court has held that where no factual issues are in dispute, no evidentiary hearing is

required under 2 Pa.C.S. § 504.”).

In this case, the evidence of record demonstrates that Petitioner was

provided ample opportunity to be heard. When Petitioner applied for PAHAF

assistance, she had an opportunity to demonstrate how she has experienced a

financial hardship as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. After she filed her

application, the Agency sent her an email requesting additional information. In its

August 16, 2023 email, a servicing specialist with PAHAF emailed Petitioner’s

counsel and requested that the Agency be sent a copy of the original mortgage note.

The specialist also informed counsel that “we must know how the client will cover

the overage above and beyond the potential $50,000 grant, as we don’t give

conditional grant approvals.” (S.R.R. at 113.) On the same day, Petitioner’s counsel

forwarded the mortgage note to the Agency and asked the Agency if they could

provide proof that his client was eligible for the full grant amount. In addition, he

indicated that he had discussed Petitioner’s case a month previously with another

PAHAF case handler. Id.

On February 1, 2024, Petitioner received her initial Ineligibility

Determination. (S.R.R. at 18.) Soon afterward, Petitioner’s counsel filed her appeal.

In connection with this appeal, Petitioner’s counsel submitted additional

documentation, including her Act 91 Notice and loan modification agreement. He

11

also submitted extensive argument on her behalf and exchanged multiple emails with

PAHAF staff. (S.R.R. at 25-28, 116, 120-23.)

After providing Petitioner with multiple opportunities to present her

version of the facts, the Agency determined that there were no outstanding issues of

fact that warranted a hearing. Based on the information Petitioner provided, it was

undisputed that she did not, by her own admissions, experience any COVID-related

hardship which contributed to her mortgage delinquency or default. Accordingly,

the Agency did not believe a hearing was necessary to resolve legal or factual issues

raised by Petitioner. We discern no error.

In Rothrock Motor Sales, Inc. v. Department of Labor & Industry, Office

of Unemployment Compensation Tax Services (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 1546 C.D. 2019,

filed April 27, 2021),3 this Court held that the Department of Labor and Industry did

not err in denying Rothrock’s appeal without an evidentiary hearing. There, the Tax

Review Office concluded:

There was no actual dispute as to the facts in this matter.

[The Department’s Office of Unemployment

Compensation Tax Services (OUCTS)] indicates

[Rothrock] did not file quarterly reports for fiscal year

2017 until February 2018 (OUCTS correspondence

covering authenticated documentary copies dated June 20,

2018 [(R.R. at 54a-55a)]). [Rothrock] admits to such

lateness in its wage reporting, as quoted in relevant part

above. (Appeal to UC Tax Review Office, under May 8,

2018 postmark [(R.R. at 50a-51a)].)

Id. at 4.

Here, as in Rothrock, there is no factual dispute as to whether Petitioner

has provided evidentiary proof demonstrating that she has experienced a Qualified

Financial Hardship, as defined in the eligibility criteria of the PAHAF Program

3

Under Section 414(a) of this Court’s Internal Operating Procedures, an unreported opinion

may be cited for its persuasive value. 210 Pa. Code § 69.414(a).

12

Policy. As in Rothrock, Petitioner was clearly on notice of the reason for the denial

of her application as well as of her opportunity to supplement the record if she

believed factual issues existed as to this issue. See also Gruff v. Department of State,

913 A.2d 1008 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (holding that because a security agreement must

be signed to be valid and there was no dispute as to the fact that the respondent did

not sign the agreement, no evidentiary hearing was required under 2 Pa.C.S. § 504.

Moreover, Petitioner does not explain what additional information or

evidence she would have presented at a hearing that would have made a difference

in the outcome of this matter. Therefore, Petitioner’s assertions in this due process

claim are not grounded in any facts whatsoever. Thus, she is not entitled to relief.

Because there are no legally relevant factual issues in dispute and

Petitioner and her counsel were provided ample opportunity to be heard, an

evidentiary hearing was not required. As no hearing was required, Petitioner was not

denied due process.

IV. Conclusion

Based on our review, it is apparent that the Agency did not abuse its

discretion, violate Petitioner’s constitutional rights, or make findings of fact that

were not supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, the Agency’s Decision is

affirmed.

________________________________

PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge

13

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Maria Rodriguez, :

Petitioner :

:

v. : No. 873 C.D. 2024

:

Pennsylvania Housing :

Finance Agency, :

Respondent :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 19th day of November, 2025, the Pennsylvania

Housing Finance Agency’s June 6, 2024 Final Agency Decision is affirmed.

________________________________

PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge