# Powell v. Housing Authority of Pittsburgh

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · December 20, 2002 · 571 Pa. 552

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9746207

## Case

- **Full name:** Beverly POWELL, Appellee v. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF PITTSBURGH, Appellant
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** December 20, 2002
- **Citations:** 571 Pa. 552; 812 A.2d 1201; 2002 Pa. LEXIS 2842
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Nigro
- **Judges:** Cappy, Castille, Nigro, Saylor, Eakin, Zappala
- **Cited by:** 13 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/9746207

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that a public housing authority may terminate benefits conferred by section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937, 42 U.S.C. § 1437f, for the violent criminal activity of a family member without having to prove that the violent criminal activity threatens the heal…
- explaining that if the “PHA approves the tenancy, the PHA and the owner enter into a [HAP] contract . . . under which the PHA makes rental payments to subsidize occupancy,” and, in turn, “the owner and the now-Section 8 participant enter into a lease for the subsidized unit”
- explaining that if the “PHA approves the tenancy, the PHA and the owner enter into a [HAP] contract ... under which the PHA makes rental payments to subsidize occupancy,” and, in turn, "the owner and the now-Section 8 participant enter into a lease for the subsidized unit”
- holding public housing authority may terminate Section 8 benefits for violent crime of family member without having to prove that the activity threatens health, safety or right to peaceful enjoyment

## Opinion text

Justice NIGRO,
concurring.
I join in the holding and analysis of the majority, and write separately solely to emphasize that although HUD regulations authorize a PHA to terminate Section 8 benefits for violent criminal activity of a family member, they by no means require PHAs to do so. Compare 24 C.F.R. § 982.553 (b)(l)(ii)(PHA “must immediately” terminate assistance when a household member has been convicted of drug-related criminal activity on the premises of federally assisted housing) with 24 C.F.R. § 982.553 (b)(2)(PHA need only establish standards that “allow” the PHA to terminate assistance if a household member has engaged in violent criminal activity). In fact, the regulations make clear that in exercising its discretion to determine whether to terminate assistance, the PHA:
may consider all relevant circumstances such as the seriousness of the case, the extent of participation or culpability of individual family members, mitigating circumstances related to the disability of a family member, and the effects of denial or termination of assistance on other family members who were not involved in the action or failure.
24 C.F.R. § 982.552 (c)(2)®. Moreover, when only certain family members are culpable for the criminal activity giving rise to the threat of termination, the PHA is specifically authorized to:
impose, as a condition of continued assistance for other family members, a requirement that other family members who participated in or were culpable for the action or failure will not reside in the unit. The PHA may permit other *578 members of a participant family to continue receiving assistance.
24 C.F.R. § 982.552 (c)(2)(ii).
Given these additional regulations, I believe that it is incumbent on PHAs to consider “all relevant circumstances” before terminating a family’s assistance based on the errant conduct of less than all of its members.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9746207. Public record. Not legal advice.