Jurisdiction over a claim of appeal under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA); “Contested case” (MCL 24.203(3)); “Final decision or order”; MCL 24.285; Federal Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program; Department of Housing & Urban Development (HUD) regulations; Deficiencies as to the Michigan State Housing Development Authority’s (MSHDA) basis for termination & notice; Due process; Public housing agency (PHA)

The court held that the circuit court erred in dismissing plaintiff-Frye’s claim of appeal for lack of jurisdiction under the APA, and that additional evidence needed to be taken before the agency as to whether she “received sufficient proper notice and was entitled to an informal hearing.” The case arose from defendant-MSHDA’s termination of Frye from the federal HCV program subsidizing rent for low-income individuals. The court first concluded that the circuit court erred in determining there was no contested case. Because “HUD regulations require the PHA to give a participant an opportunity for an informal hearing before terminating housing assistance,” this was a contested case under the APA. In addition, the “APA provides for judicial review in a contested case when a person is aggrieved by a ‘final decision or order.’” In this case, “MSHDA’s counsel clearly stated that MSHDA’s denial of Frye’s request for an informal hearing was its final decision[.]” The court found that “Frye exhausted all available administrative remedies and was aggrieved by MSHDA’s final decision to deny her an informal hearing regarding its termination of her housing assistance in this contested case.” Thus, the circuit court erred in concluding “it did not have jurisdiction to review this matter.” The court also agreed with Frye that the circuit court erred in refusing to review it because the record revealed deficiencies as to “MSHDA’s basis for termination and the notice allegedly provided.” She asserted “that she did not receive the termination notice and thus she could not timely request an informal hearing.” And even assuming there was evidence that the notice was sent to her on 9/13/22, there was a dispute whether it was proper. It stated that her rental assistance was terminated “13 days before the notice was issued.” There was also a dispute whether she “violated any specific program rules regarding use and occupancy of the rental unit.” Reversed and remanded.