DocketNumber: Appeal, No. 1652 C.D. 1986
Citation Numbers: 100 Pa. Commw. 18, 513 A.2d 1144
Judges: Crumlish, Lish, Rogers
Filed Date: 8/15/1986
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 6/24/2022
Opinion by
The petitioner in this case, Keith A. Shepherd, seeks review of a final order of a hearing examiner upholding a decision of the Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency (Agency) refusing the petitioners application for thé homeowner’s emergency assistance provided by Article IV-C of the Housing Agency Law, Act of December 3, 1959, P.L. 1688, as amended, 35 P.S. §1680.Í01-1680.508 (the Act). Article IV-C was added to the Housing Agency Law by the Act of December 23, 1983, P. L. 383, as amended, 35 P.S. §§ 1680.401c-1680.410c.
Section 405c of the Act provides that if the Agency finds that an applicant mortgagor is eligible for home
Section 404c of The Act is entitled Eligibility for Assistance and provides that no assistance may be made to a mortgagor unless, inter alia,
[a] (5) The agency has determined that there is a reasonable prospect that the mortgagor will be able to resume full mortgage payments within thirty-six (36) months after the beginning of the period for which assistance payments are provided under this article and pay the mortgage or mortgages in full by its maturity date or by a later date agreed to by the mortgagee of mortgagees for completing mortgage payments.
The Agency decided there was not a reasonable prospect that the petitioner would be able to pay his mortgage as Section 404c(a)(5) requires; that the petitioners financial condition was an “on-going situation which severely limits the probability of resumption of payments and payment of the mortgage by maturity.” The hearing examiner, after hearing, agreed with the Agency’s assessment.
The petitioner owns and resides in a dwelling at 1611 Ringgold Street, Philadelphia. The dwelling is encumbered by a mortgage which requires monthly payments of $169.00. On July 8, 1982, the petitioner was much delinquent in his payments and foreclosure
As for the petitioners employment record, we learn that he worked for the U.S. Postal Service for eighteen years. He testified to having been injured in 1976 and lost time from work in the years following and that in 1985 he was injured again and lost time from work but received no workmens compensation. In January 1986 he was discharged by the U.S. Postal Service because “I had some legal conflict as far as the mail process was concerned. It was a legal process taken so therefore believed [sic] that I lost my position.” He was unemployed at the time of the hearing but looking for work and testified that he had a prospect for employment.
The petitioner also testified that his income during the last four or five years—which includes the years
The petitioners personal circumstances are that he is the father of three children but separated from them and their mother. He is subject to a $300 per month support order but testified that he may soon be relieved of this obligation because the children are, or are near, eighteen years old. He lives with his fiancee and their young child at the Ringgold Street property. The petitioner testified that his fiancee is employed and would contribute to the living expenses.
Reports filed by the. mortgagees agent show that as of about the time of the hearing the current unpaid principal of the originally $9,200 mortgage was $4,112 and the arrearages in principal and interest as the result of defaults in installment payments were $3,494 making a total arrearage of more than $7,600.00
These circumstances—the failure of the petitioner to comply with the bankruptcy plan when he was employed; his condition of unemployment at the time this matter was decided;
Order affirmed.
Order
And Now, this 15th day of August, 1986, the order of the Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency in the above-captioned matter is affirmed.
The petitioners counsel reports in- his brief filed here that the petitioner as of that writing had obtained full-time employment.