Brown v. Bangor Housing Authority

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

STATE O F MAINE PENOBSCOT, SS. SUPENOR COURT CIVIL ACTION Docket No. AP-05-6 Kristen M. Brown, PlaintiffIAppellee I ) i Order on Appeal i -- ... rj&;.!->ji . . R L ? - -suFE;z,;<,5r;; ; ! . P I ; ,-,. , :;, . < - :: . !>$?I " I.: .,v 4, :y -1. 6 ,, q<,,3p d:):,.;F 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 w :-\,...y8,-- " * 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. j I 1 I I I 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 Docket No. PENOBSCOT AP-2005-6 p p County I *,-tion SMALL CLAIM APPEAL ASSIGNED TO JUSTICE JEFFREY L. HJELM i VS. BANGOR HOUSING AUTHORITY KRISTEN BROWN Defendant's Attorney PINE TREE LEGAL ASSISTANCE 6 1 MAIN STREET RM 4 1 BANGOR, ME. 0 4 4 0 1 BY: CARL E. KANDUTSCH, ESQ. , GROSS MINSKY M G L PA OA 23 WATER ST SUITE 4 0 0 P 0 BOX 917 BANGOR, ME. 04402 BY: E W R W. GOULD, ESQ. D AD 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 .

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.