# M. Rodriguez v. PA Housing Finance Agency

> Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · November 19, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11205333

## Case

- **Court:** Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** November 19, 2025
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** McCullough
- **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/11205333

## Opinion text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11205333. Public record. Not legal advice.