SABRINA KELLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. IOWA CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, Defendant-Appellee.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 9-609 / 09-0317
Filed August 19, 2009
SABRINA KELLER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
vs.
IOWA CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, Douglas S.
Russell, Judge.
Recipient of housing assistance appeals a decision of the district court
denying her petition for writ of certiorari and upholding termination of her housing
assistance. AFFIRMED.
Elizabeth A. Norris of Iowa Legal Aid, Iowa City, for appellant.
Susan Delek, Assistant City Attorney, Iowa City, for appellee.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Eisenhauer and Doyle, JJ.
2
EISENHAUER, J.
Sabrina Keller appeals a decision of the district court denying her petition
for a writ of certiorari and upholding the decision of the Iowa City Housing
Authority (ICHA) to terminate her rental assistance under the Housing Choice
Voucher Program. We affirm.
I.
Background Facts and Proceedings.
On December 10, 2007, ICHA notified Keller her rental assistance would
be terminated because she had allowed Larry Watson Sr. to reside with her
without first obtaining written approval from her landlord and ICHA. ICHA needs
to know who is residing in subsidized housing in order to determine program
eligibility and income. The amount of the subsidy depends on the income of the
residents.
Keller appealed the termination decision and an administrative
hearing was held on January 15, 2008.
The hearing officer upheld the
termination.
In February 2008, Keller filed a petition for writ of certiorari claiming the
ICHA acted illegally and abused its discretion because it did not consider the
effect of denial of assistance on her children and because its termination decision
is not supported by substantial evidence. In January 2009, the district court ruled
the ICHA did not act illegally in terminating Keller’s rental assistance and
annulled the writ of certiorari.
Keller appeals and argues the district court erred in ruling: (1) substantial
evidence supports the administrative agency’s voucher termination decision; and
(2) the agency did not abuse its discretion.
3
II.
Standard of Review.
Certiorari actions are proper when an inferior board/tribunal, exercising
judicial functions, acts illegally.
Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.1401.
An illegality is
established if the decision of the board/tribunal is not supported by substantial
evidence. Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.1410. See City of Cedar Rapids v. Mun. Fire &
Police Ret. System, 526 N.W.2d 284, 287 (Iowa 1995).
Our review of a district court certiorari ruling is at law. Iowa R. App. P.
6.907 (2009). We are bound by the findings of the district court if they are
supported by substantial evidence in the record. Perkins v. Bd. of Supervisors,
636 N.W.2d 58, 64 (Iowa 2001). Evidence is substantial when “a reasonable
mind would accept it as adequate to reach a conclusion.” Id. (citation omitted).
III.
Substantial Evidence.
After reviewing the record, we conclude the district court’s findings are
supported by substantial evidence. While there is conflicting evidence, we note
“evidence is still substantial even though it would have supported contrary
inferences.” City of Cedar Rapids, 526 N.W.2d at 287. We adopt the district
court’s well-reasoned discussion:
The court concludes there is substantial evidence in the record to
support [ICHA’s] decision that [Keller] allowed Larry Watson Sr. to
reside at 16 Coneflower Court without [Keller] having obtained
permission from [ICHA] to have another individual reside at the
residence. [ICHA’s] decision is supported by the fact that [Keller]
provided [ICHA] with conflicting testimony regarding where Larry
Watson Sr. lived and the dates he lived at certain addresses, and
that Larry Watson Sr. provided 16 Coneflower Court as his address
to certain governmental entities. While some of this evidence
undoubtedly was hearsay evidence, the fact that Larry Watson Sr.
made statements regarding his address to governmental entities
lends a level of trustworthiness and credibility to the statements that
4
may not have been provided simply through the testimony of
[Keller] and other witnesses. There is an element of reliability in the
hearsay evidence due to the fact that some of the statements were
made to the Internal Revenue Service and the Iowa City Police
Department, entities that recorded Larry Watson Sr.’s address as
being 16 Coneflower Court. The conflicting testimony provided by
[Keller] also provided a basis for the hearing officer to determine
that [Keller’s] testimony regarding where Larry Watson Sr. lived
was not credible, regardless of whether the hearing officer
specifically set forth any credibility determinations. In short, due to
the substantial evidence that supports the hearing officer’s
decision, this Court will not substitute its judgment for that of the
agency, even where the Court might draw different inferences from
the facts presented to the hearing officer.
IV.
Consideration of the Effects of Termination.
Keller also argues the district court erred in not finding ICHA and the
hearing officer “abused discretion by not considering the effects of the
termination on [Keller] and her children.” We disagree. The relevant regulation
provides the agency hearing officer “may” consider the effects of termination on
other family members.
See 24 C.F.R. § 982.552(c)(2)(i) (2008).
Therefore,
substantial evidence supports the district court’s ruling:
While the hearing officer could have considered such effects, the
hearing officer was not required to do so, and there were other
relevant circumstances to support the hearing officer’s decision,
such as the fact that [Keller] provided inconsistent testimony
regarding Larry Watson Sr.’s living arrangements, and that Larry
Watson Sr. had provided 16 Coneflower Court as his address.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of Keller’s petition for writ
of certiorari.
AFFIRMED.
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.
