Banks v. Housing Auth. of City of Omaha
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Nebraska Advance Sheets
banks v. housing auth. of city of omaha
Cite as 281 Neb. 67
67
Willie Banks, Jr., appellant, v. The Housing Authority
of the City of Omaha et al., appellees.
___N.W.2d___
Filed January 28, 2011.
No. S-10-302.
1. Administrative Law: Appeal and Error. In reviewing an administrative agency
decision on a petition in error, both the district court and the appellate court
review the decision to determine whether the agency acted within its jurisdiction
and whether sufficient, relevant evidence supports the decision of the agency.
2. Administrative Law: Evidence. The evidence is sufficient, as a matter of law, if
an administrative tribunal could reasonably find the facts as it did based on the
testimony and exhibits contained in the record before it.
3. Administrative Law. Administrative action must not be arbitrary or capricious.
4. Administrative Law: Appeal and Error. The reviewing court in an error proceeding is restricted to the record before the administrative agency and does not
reweigh evidence or make independent findings of fact.
Appeal from the District Court for Douglas County: Thomas
A. Otepka, Judge. Affirmed.
Liliana E. Shannon and Scott M. Mertz, of Legal Aid of
Nebraska, for appellant.
George B. Achola and Natalie Baumgarten, of Housing
Authority of the City of Omaha, for appellees.
Heavican, C.J., Wright, Connolly, Gerrard, Stephan,
McCormack, and Miller-Lerman, JJ.
Wright, J.
NATURE OF CASE
The Housing Authority of the City of Omaha (OHA) terminated housing benefits for Willie Banks, Jr., after he was allegedly involved in criminal activity. A hearing officer confirmed
the termination of benefits, and Banks filed a petition in error
in Douglas County District Court. The court affirmed the hearing officer’s decision. Banks appeals.
SCOPE OF REVIEW
[1] In reviewing an administrative agency decision on a
petition in error, both the district court and the appellate court
review the decision to determine whether the agency acted
within its jurisdiction and whether sufficient, relevant evidence
Nebraska Advance Sheets
68
281 nebraska reports
supports the decision of the agency. Pierce v. Douglas Cty.
Civil Serv. Comm., 275 Neb. 722, 748 N.W.2d 660 (2008).
FACTS
In 2008, Banks resided in a unit of OHA-operated housing
on Florence Boulevard (Florence unit). In early 2009, while
Banks was still living in the Florence unit, he was approved
for a federally subsidized housing choice voucher program,
commonly referred to as “Section 8” housing, which is also
administered by OHA.
Based on a report that Banks had committed an assault and
robbery, his lease for the Florence unit was terminated. When
he did not move out as requested, OHA filed a forcible entry
and detainer action (restitution action) in county court. Before
a hearing was held on the restitution action, Banks moved
out of the Florence unit and into the Section 8 housing. OHA
determined that Banks had previously been evicted from OHA
housing, and it terminated his Section 8 benefits. At Banks’
request, an informal hearing was held on the termination of
benefits, and the hearing officer upheld the termination. The
district court affirmed the hearing officer’s finding.
A detailed chronology of the events follows:
• December 12, 2008: Banks was allegedly involved in an
assault and robbery when he knocked down a person and took
the person’s billfold, which contained $6 and identification.
• December 17, 2008: OHA staff received a report that
Banks was involved in an assault and robbery.
• January 5, 2009: Banks’ application for assistance under
Section 8 was approved.
• January 14, 2009: OHA mailed a “Three Day Notice
for Failure to Comply with Lease (Eviction for
Criminal Activity)” to Banks at the Florence unit. The notice
stated that Banks had violated the lease and the “‘One Strike
and You’re Out’” addendum to the lease. The notice stated:
“YOUR RENTAL AGREEMENT WILL BE CONSIDERED
AUTOMATICALLY TERMINATED ON THE THIRD DAY
AFTER RECEIPT OF THIS NOTICE AND YOU SHALL
IMMEDIATELY QUIT, VACATE AND SURRENDER
POSSESSION OF THE ABOVE-DESCRIBED PREMISES,”
Nebraska Advance Sheets
banks v. housing auth. of city of omaha
Cite as 281 Neb. 67
69
and “You are not entitled to a grievance hearing in this
t
ermination.”
• February 3, 2009: OHA filed the restitution action against
Banks after he refused to vacate the Florence unit as directed
by the 3-day notice. Trial was set for February 17.
• February 5, 2009: Banks’ Section 8 housing passed
i
nspection.
• February 12, 2009: E-mail correspondence in the record
indicates that according to OHA personnel, Banks was evicted
from the Florence unit and turned in his keys. One e-mail noted
that the “eviction hearing” was scheduled for February 17 but
that OHA counsel would dismiss the restitution action because
Banks turned in his keys to the unit. A reply e-mail stated that
the Section 8 housing Banks planned to move to had passed
inspection, but stated: “We will process all the paper work and
give the owner a 30 day notice and terminate him just as soon
as we receive the lease and contracts.”
• February 17, 2009: The restitution action was dismissed at
the request of OHA.
• March 10, 2009: Banks was notified that his Section 8 bene
fits would be terminated effective May 1 because “[y]ou were
evicted from [the] Florence [unit]. You were served with a 3
day notice on January 14, 2009. Per OHA legal Department
you surrendered your keys on February 12, 2009.” The letter
quoted two sections of the federal regulations: “CFR 982.551
Obligations of participant. (e) Violation of lease. The family
may not commit any serious or repeated violation of the lease.
(g) Owner eviction notice. The family must promptly give the
[public housing agency] a copy of any owner eviction notice,”
and “CFR 982.552 [Public housing agency] denial or termination of assistance for family. (ii) If any member of the
family has been evicted from federally assisted housing in the
last five years.” The letter also advised Banks that he had the
right to an informal hearing. Attached was a document titled
“Tenant Hearing/Review Rights.” A notice was
also sent to the landlord of the Section 8 property.
• March 12, 2009: Banks submitted a request for an informal
hearing, stating: “You siad [sic] that I got evicted From [the]
Florence [unit] but I didn’t.”
Nebraska Advance Sheets
70
281 nebraska reports
• March 31, 2009: An informal hearing was held before a
hearing officer.
• April 14, 2009: The hearing officer issued a two-page decision in which she stated that the notice for criminal activity
served on Banks gave him 3 days to vacate and surrender the
premises. The “eviction action” was filed to obtain restitution
when Banks did not vacate after the 3 days expired. OHA dismissed the court proceedings when Banks turned in his keys
prior to the court date. Based on the evidence presented during
the hearing, the hearing officer determined that Banks should
remain terminated from the Section 8 program.
The district court determined that the evidence was sufficient to support the decision of the hearing officer and that
the decision was not arbitrary or capricious. Because Banks
vacated the Florence unit prior to the hearing for restitution, there was no need for OHA to further pursue its action
in court; it had obtained the relief it sought. Banks chose to
vacate the premises rather than contest the eviction proceeding
in court. OHA’s dismissal of the restitution action was “appropriate and logical.”
The district court stated that adopting Banks’ position
would frustrate the intent of federal housing laws and their
enforcement because a public housing tenant could avoid
the consequences of his own behavior by willfully failing to
comply with the terms of the lease; refusing to vacate and
surrender the premises, forcing the housing authority to take
legal action; vacating the premises prior to a court hearing;
and then arguing that he was entitled to continue to receive
housing assistance because there was no court order evicting him. The court affirmed the hearing officer’s decision.
Banks appeals.
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
Banks assigns the following errors: (1) The district court
erroneously upheld the termination of Banks’ Section 8 housing benefits, in that the hearing officer’s decision was not
supported in law or by fact; (2) the administrative decision
violated OHA’s administrative plan by finding that an eviction
occurred when there was no legal eviction order; and (3) the
Nebraska Advance Sheets
banks v. housing auth. of city of omaha
Cite as 281 Neb. 67
71
district court exceeded its authority by making findings of fact
not properly before the reviewing court.
ANALYSIS
[2-4] Our review of OHA’s decision requires us to determine whether the agency acted within its jurisdiction and
whether sufficient, relevant evidence supports the decision
of the agency. See Pierce v. Douglas Cty. Civil Serv. Comm.,
275 Neb. 722, 748 N.W.2d 660 (2008). The evidence is sufficient, as a matter of law, if an administrative tribunal could
reasonably find the facts as it did based on the testimony and
exhibits contained in the record before it. Id. In addition, the
administrative action must not be arbitrary or capricious. Id.
The reviewing court in an error proceeding is restricted to the
record before the administrative agency and does not reweigh
evidence or make independent findings of fact. Id.
The issue before us is whether Banks’ Section 8 housing
benefits were properly terminated, as determined by the hearing officer and affirmed by the district court.
OHA is a public housing agency established pursuant to
state and federal housing programs. Thirty LLC v. Omaha
Housing Authority, 17 Neb. App. 715, 771 N.W.2d 165 (2009).
OHA operates a public housing program, which provides housing such as the Florence unit, and the Section 8 program, under
which low-income individuals are eligible for rent subsidies
that can be applied to a home of their choice in the private
sector. Id. An individual may apply for Section 8 benefits,
and if qualified, the individual is issued a housing voucher.
See id. The individual is responsible for finding a suitable
housing unit of his or her choice, which the owner agrees to
rent under the program. See id. Section 8 housing is a federal program created by the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development.
OHA operates pursuant to the Nebraska Housing Agency
Act (Act), Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 71-1572 to 71-15,168 (Reissue
2009). See Harris v. Omaha Housing Auth., 269 Neb. 981,
698 N.W.2d 58 (2005). Under the Act, the landlord-tenant
relationship and the termination of such relationship are governed by state law applicable to privately owned residential
Nebraska Advance Sheets
72
281 nebraska reports
property. § 71-15,138. Concerning termination of tenancy,
§ 71-15,139 states:
(1) A housing agency may adopt and promulgate reasonable rules and regulations consistent with federal and
state laws, rules, and regulations and the purposes of
the . . . Act concerning the termination of tenancy. Any
resident so terminated shall be sent a written notice of
termination setting out the reasons for such termination,
and any resident served with a notice shall be given the
opportunity to contest the termination in an appropriate
hearing by the housing agency. A resident may contest the
termination in any suit filed by the housing agency in any
court for recovery of possession of the premises.
....
(3) A housing agency may, after three days’ written
notice of termination and without an administrative hearing, file suit and have judgment against any resident for
recovery of possession of the premises if the resident, any
member of the resident’s household, any guest, or any
other person who is under the resident’s control or who
is present upon the premises with the resident’s consent,
engages in any drug-related or violent criminal activity on
the premises, or engages in any activity that threatens the
health, safety, or peaceful enjoyment of other residents or
housing agency employees. Such activity shall include,
but not be limited to, any of the following activities of the
resident, or the activities of any other person on the premises with the consent of the resident: (a) Physical assault
or the threat of physical assault . . . .
Thus, under the Act, OHA has the authority to file suit for
recovery of the premises if the resident engages in violent
criminal activity. The definition of criminal activity includes
the commission of physical assault or the threat of physical
assault. Banks was accused of committing an assault and robbery, and the OHA acted within its jurisdiction in filing the
restitution action.
Federal regulations also set out the grounds upon which
a public housing agency may deny admission or terminate
assistance. See 24 C.F.R. § 982.552(c) (2010). These grounds
Nebraska Advance Sheets
banks v. housing auth. of city of omaha
Cite as 281 Neb. 67
73
include: “[i]f any member of the family has been evicted from
federally assisted housing in the last five years” and “[i]f the
family has been engaged in criminal activity or alcohol abuse
as described in § 982.553.” § 982.552(c)(1)(ii) and (xi). A public housing agency may prohibit admission to a housing program if any household member is engaged in or has engaged in
“(2) Violent criminal activity; (3) Other criminal activity which
may threaten the health, safety, or right to peaceful enjoyment
of the premises by other residents or persons residing in the
immediate vicinity.” 24 C.F.R. § 982.553(a)(2)(ii)(A) (2010).
The regulations provide that the agency
may terminate assistance for criminal activity by a household member as authorized in this section if the [agency]
determines, based on a preponderance of the evidence,
that the household member has engaged in the activity,
regardless of whether the household member has been
arrested or convicted for such activity.
§ 982.553(c) (emphasis supplied).
Under these regulations, Banks’ housing benefits could have
been terminated solely based on the alleged assault, even
though he was not charged with any crime. The original 3-day
notice Banks received was subtitled “Eviction for Criminal
Activity.” The hearing officer’s decision noted that Banks was
served a 3-day notice for “criminal activity.” There was evidence presented at the hearing that Banks had committed an
assault and robbery. This court cannot reweigh the evidence
or make independent findings of fact. We determine whether
the evidence supports the agency decision. Because federal
regulations allow the agency to terminate assistance if a family member is involved in criminal activity, which can include
an assault, the agency’s decision to terminate Banks’ housing
benefits is supported by the evidence.
Banks next argues that he voluntarily moved out of the
Florence unit and that, therefore, he was not evicted. A public housing agency may deny assistance or terminate benefits
if the individual or family “has been evicted from federally
assisted housing in the last five years.” § 982.552(c)(1)(ii).
Banks asserts that because he turned in his keys and the restitution action was dismissed, he had not been “evicted” within
Nebraska Advance Sheets
74
281 nebraska reports
the previous 5 years, and that, therefore, his benefits could not
be terminated. However, he fails to recognize that his benefits
could also be terminated for participation in criminal activity,
and he does not deny that he committed a criminal act.
It is true that no judicially executed judgment of eviction
was entered, because OHA dismissed the action after Banks
turned in his keys to the Florence unit. However, if OHA had
proceeded with the hearing and evidence was presented that
Banks had moved out of the unit, the restitution action would
have been found to be moot.
OHA had the authority to deny Banks benefits based on
federal regulations that allow a public housing agency to deny
or terminate benefits to a tenant who has taken part in violent
criminal activity. Banks knocked down another person, reached
into the person’s jacket, and took a billfold. There was sufficient evidence before the hearing officer to support the finding
that Banks was evicted for criminal activity. The decision was
not arbitrary or capricious.
Banks also argues that the hearing officer’s decision violated OHA’s administrative plan by finding that an eviction
occurred when there was no legal eviction order. The portion
of the administrative plan Banks asks this court to consider
was offered at the hearing on the petition in error, but it was
not presented to the hearing officer. The district court made no
ruling on the exhibit. The reviewing court in an error proceeding is restricted to the record before the administrative agency
and does not reweigh evidence or make independent findings
of fact. Pierce v. Douglas Cty. Civil Serv. Comm., 275 Neb.
722, 748 N.W.2d 660 (2008). The hearing officer did not have
the administrative plan before her, and the district court made
no ruling on whether the administrative plan should have been
received into evidence. We cannot review any alleged violation
of the administrative plan when it was not properly before the
hearing officer.
Finally, Banks claims that the district court exceeded its
authority by conducting a de novo review of the facts and
making findings of fact that were not part of the record before
the agency. He argues that the language in the court’s order
Nebraska Advance Sheets
in re interest of c.r.
Cite as 281 Neb. 75
75
q
uestioned Banks’ motives, which should not have been an
issue before the court.
The district court stated, “Instead of contesting the eviction proceeding in court, Banks chose to vacate the premises.”
Banks argues that this is a finding of fact that goes beyond the
hearing officer’s order. However, this finding had been made
by the hearing officer, who stated that Banks turned in his keys
prior to the court date, which resulted in OHA’s dismissal of
the court proceedings. The district court’s comment was merely
part of its analysis. It was not a new finding of fact or the result
of de novo review.
CONCLUSION
The decision of OHA to terminate Banks’ housing benefits
was not arbitrary or capricious. The evidence showed that he
had been involved in criminal activity, and federal regulations
provide that a public housing agency may deny or terminate
benefits on that basis. The judgment of the district court
is affirmed.
Affirmed.
In
re I nterest of C.R., alleged to be developmentally
disabled and a threat of harm to others.
State
of Nebraska, appellee, v.
C.R.,
appellant.
___N.W.2d___
Filed January 28, 2011.
No. S-10-307.
1. Constitutional Law: Statutes: Appeal and Error. Whether a statute is constitutional is a question of law; accordingly, the Nebraska Supreme Court is obligated
to reach a conclusion independent of the decision reached by the court below.
2. Constitutional Law: Statutes: Presumptions. A statute is presumed to
be constitutional, and all reasonable doubts will be resolved in favor of its
c
onstitutionality.
3. Mental Health: Proof. The Developmental Disabilities Court-Ordered Custody
Act requires that the State prove by clear and convincing evidence that the subject
is a person in need of court-ordered custody and treatment.
4. Mental Health: Public Health and Welfare: Proof: Words and Phrases. A
threat of harm to others, as contemplated by the Developmental Disabilities
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.