Speelman V. Rockefoot Court Case Summary
Facts: In February 2001, Speelman moved into a BHA subsidized apartment with her two minor children. The following month Speelman’s probation was revoked, and she was sentenced to 75 days in jail. BHA was aware Speelman was on probation. She then arranged for her 19 year old daughter, Audrey Larson, to care for her children at her apartment. BHA was not notified Speelman had been incarcerated or of the new occupant in the residence. Office Lowell English, BHA’s police liason, was responding to a complaint about Speelman’s children running around the apartment complex at night. After his visit, officer English found Speelman was incarcerated. On June 2, BHA sent a notice stating Speelman’s voucher payments will be terminated as of July 31st. The letter also states Speelman has the right to appeal the decision by writing a request for a hearing within 14 days. Even though Larson had access to Speelman’s mail, she was specifically instructed only to open mail from the children’s school. Speelman returned to her apartment on June 17th to find the termination letter, and sent a request for a hearing on June 23rd, which is seven days after the deadline. BHA denied the request stating her response was untimely, and she lost her funds.
…show more content…
The trial court decided no due process violation occurred and the plaintiff was at fault.
Issues presented:
Was Speelman’s substansive and procedural due process violated, as well as her right to a preliminary injunction?
Holding: Speelman should have been granted a preliminary injunction, and her substansive and procedural due process was indeed
The trial court decided no due process violation occurred and the plaintiff was at fault.
Issues presented:
Was Speelman’s substansive and procedural due process violated, as well as her right to a preliminary injunction?
Holding: Speelman should have been granted a preliminary injunction, and her substansive and procedural due process was indeed