Christina Lyons v. Lilliam Henegar, Trusteee of Bloomington Township (mem. dec) ( 2017 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any May 30 2017, 9:38 am
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
APPELLANT PRO SE ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE
Christina Lyons Darla S. Brown
Bloomington, Indiana Sturgeon & Brown, P.C.
Bloomington, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Christina Lyons, May 30, 2017
Appellant, Court of Appeals Case No.
53A04-1603-MI-611
v. Appeal from the Monroe Circuit
Court
Lillian Henegar, Trustee of The Honorable Frances G. Hill,
Bloomington Township, Judge
Appellee. Trial Court Cause No.
53C06-1506-MI-1114
Barnes, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 53A04-1603-MI-611 | May 30, 2017 Page 1 of 13
Case Summary
[1] Christina Lyons appeals the trial court’s order regarding the denial of her
application for township assistance by Lillian Henegar, Trustee of Bloomington
Township (“Trustee”). We affirm.
Issue
[2] Lyons raises numerous issues, which we consolidate and restate as whether the
trial court properly denied Lyons’s request for township assistance.
Facts
[3] On March 9, 2015, Lyons signed a four-month lease with Woodbridge of
Bloomington apartment complex. Lyons was obligated to pay $683.00 per
month in rent. The rent did not include gas, electric, cable, or internet. Lyons’s
Social Security income less her Medicare premium and student loan payment
resulted in her having approximately $750.00 per month in available income.
On March 23, 2015, Lyons applied for food stamps and Medicaid. On March
25, 2015, Lyons applied for Section 8 housing at Woodbridge, and she was
placed on a waiting list. Lyons hoped that Section 8 housing would be
available at Woodbridge by the time her four-month lease expired. However,
she was told that the waiting time could be six months to a year.
[4] Lyons was only able to pay $183 of the April rent payment. Lyons completed
the application and interview for township assistance on April 17, 2015. She
requested $500 to pay the remainder of her April rent payment. At that time,
Lyons had $58.62 in the bank and $5 in cash. Lyons also had monthly
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 53A04-1603-MI-611 | May 30, 2017 Page 2 of 13
expenses for food, a credit card bill, phone bills, utilities, and other
miscellaneous expenses.
[5] On April 22, 2015, the Trustee denied Lyons’s request for rent assistance for
April as follows:
Your request for township assistance has been denied since you
do not have the means to maintain a monthly rent and electric
with your income. The Trustee may not provide rent or utility
assistance without proof applicant will be able to continue to pay
the monthly rent or utility. This is a reason for township denial.
May rent will be due in eight days. According to Woodbridge
the wait list for Section 8 is six to twelve months. At this time,
you do not have sufficient income to pay a monthly rent of $683
until you are approved for Section 8. If you need emergency
shelter, you may contact Martha’s House . . . or Agape House . .
..
Appellant’s App. Vol. II p. 24. Lyons appealed the denial of township
assistance to the Board of County Commissioners (“Commissioners”), which
affirmed the denial. Lyons then appealed to the trial court.
[6] Lyons named the Trustee and the Commissioners in her complaint, and the
trial court later dismissed the Commissioners from the action. After a hearing,
the trial court denied Lyons’s request for township assistance and issued the
following findings of fact and conclusions thereon:
15. Before this court, the Plaintiff contends that denial of
township assistance is in error because Plaintiff is not
seeking ongoing shelter assistance but emergency relief
that she qualifies for emergency relief, that the case
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 53A04-1603-MI-611 | May 30, 2017 Page 3 of 13
manager misstated her expenses, and that the forms are
problematic because a budget is not the same as a
statement of expenses. Plaintiff also argues that her rental
arrangement was sustainable because her expenses are not
as great as stated because of the verbal verification that she
received and shared with the Trustee that she is eligible for
food stamps and Medicaid, that she could afford her future
rental payments until section 8 became available by not
paying (or delaying) some of her fixed expenses as needed,
and that she was not seeking ongoing monthly assistance
but only one payment toward her April rent. Plaintiff may
also argue that the Bloomington Township Trustee
Guidelines are inconsistent with Indiana law.
16. Defendant Trustee defends the denial of township
assistance, on her argument that Plaintiff’s request for
$500 was not related to an emergency, but was Plaintiff’s
purposeful calculation that she could use township
assistance to fulfill a rental obligation while Plaintiff
juggled other expenses until Section 8 housing was
available to her, with no guarantees as to when that would
be. Defendant Trustee also argues that the Trustee is
prohibited by the Township Trustee Guidelines from
giving assistance toward rent if the rent amount is not
sustainable, contending that Plaintiff’s monthly rent of
$683 is not sustainable on Plaintiff’s income of Social
Security Disability less her expenses, and that this is
confirmed by the fact that Plaintiff could not make her first
rent payment in full in April. Trustee argues that it
followed its application process and could not consider
that Plaintiff’s expenses would be reduced by her Medicaid
eligibility because it did not have the necessary written
verification for same within the application deadline.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 53A04-1603-MI-611 | May 30, 2017 Page 4 of 13
17. The Bloomington Township Assistance Guidelines in
effect at the time of Plaintiff’s application for assistance
state on the topic of shelter, in pertinent part, as follows:
The Trustee may help provide shelter as needed on
a month-by-month basis. Assistance will be
provided in whatever form necessary to provide or
prevent the loss of shelter so long as such aid constitutes
the most economical and practical means of providing
shelter . . . .
The Trustee will not issue a rent purchase order to
supplement any rent subsidy, supplement or other
government rent assistance unless a special emergency
need exists. The Trustee will not pay rent deposits or
late fees or damage or maintenance costs. The
Trustee may not provide rent or mortgage payment
without proof the applicant will be able to continue to pay
that monthly rent or mortgage. [italics added]
18. The court concludes that the Plaintiff was not seeking
relief for an unexpected event - an emergency. Plaintiff
carefully calculated her expenses and potential available
benefits and then entered into a rental arrangement
knowing that she had a shortfall, with the hope that she
could obtain Trustee assistance or other benefits would
become available before her full rent was due. Plaintiff was
not seeking relief based upon an unexpected emergency.
19. The court concludes that the Plaintiff’s monthly rental
expense of $683 was not sustainable, and denies the relief
because the evidence does not show that the applicant
[Plaintiff] will be able to continue to pay that monthly rent or
mortgage.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 53A04-1603-MI-611 | May 30, 2017 Page 5 of 13
20. The court bases this conclusion upon the following. The
evidence shows that the Plaintiff’s monthly Social Security
Disability income of $954 is reduced by monthly expenses
of at least $204 (Sallie Mae Loan and Medicare premium),
which does not include the Plaintiff’s other likely or owing
expenses for phone, food, $25 credit card payment, or
utility expenses. The Plaintiff did not adequately verify
that she was approved for Medicaid such that her monthly
Medicare premium would not be charged. The evidence
does not show that the Section 8 housing benefit will be
available before the Plaintiff’s next rent payment is due.
The evidence showed the Plaintiff was on a waiting list
with no date certain when the Section 8 benefit would be
available.
21. Subtracting Plaintiff’s Social Security Disability of $954
from the minimum $204 in expenses, the Plaintiff had
available income of $750. A monthly rental expense of
$683 is 91% of the monthly income of $750. After
payment of that rental expense Plaintiff would have only
$67 for the remainder of her monthly living expense. This
is not sustainable. The evidence does not show that the
Plaintiff could continue to pay the monthly rent as is
required by the Bloomington Township Trustee
Guidelines. The application for assistance should be
denied.
22. The court does not discount the efforts of the Plaintiff to
carefully marshal all available resources to obtain housing,
nor the pain and trauma of homelessness. However, the
court does not find the Bloomington Township Trustee
Guidelines inconsistent with Indiana law or justice. The
Trustee is limited to a budget. Guidelines that promote
economical and practical means of providing shelter and
require sustainability in non-emergency situations, are not
unreasonable or unjust.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 53A04-1603-MI-611 | May 30, 2017 Page 6 of 13
Appellant’s App. Vol. II pp. 13-15. Lyons now appeals.
Analysis
[7] Lyons appeals the trial court’s denial of her request for township assistance.
The trial court here issued sua sponte findings and conclusions. Sua sponte
findings control only as to the issues they cover, and a general judgment will
control as to the issues upon which there are no findings. Yanoff v. Muncy, 688
N.E.2d 1259, 1262 (Ind. 1997). We will affirm a general judgment entered with
findings if it can be sustained on any legal theory supported by the evidence. Id.When a court has made special findings of fact, we review sufficiency of the
evidence using a two-step process. Id. First, we must determine whether the
evidence supports the trial court’s findings of fact. Id. Second, we must
determine whether those findings of fact support the trial court’s conclusions of
law. Id.[8] Findings will only be set aside if they are clearly erroneous. Id. “Findings are
clearly erroneous only when the record contains no facts to support them either
directly or by inference.” Id. A judgment is clearly erroneous if it applies the
wrong legal standard to properly-found facts. Id. In order to determine that a
finding or conclusion is clearly erroneous, an appellate court’s review of the
evidence must leave it with the firm conviction that a mistake has been made.
Id. We neither reweigh the evidence nor assess the credibility of witnesses, but
consider only the evidence most favorable to the judgment. Fowler v. Perry, 830
N.E.2d 97, 102 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 53A04-1603-MI-611 | May 30, 2017 Page 7 of 13
[9] The procedure for awarding township assistance, formerly known as “poor
relief,” is regulated by Indiana Code Article 12-20. The purpose of Article 12-
20 “is to provide necessary and prompt relief to the citizens and residents of
Indiana.” Ind. Code § 12-20-1-1. “A township trustee, as administrator of
township assistance, may provide and shall extend township assistance only
when the personal effort of the township assistance applicant fails to provide
one (1) or more basic necessities.” I.C. § 12-20-16-1.
If a township trustee determines by investigation that a township
assistance applicant or a township assistance applicant’s
household requires assistance, the township trustee shall, after
determining that an emergency exists, furnish to the applicant or
household the temporary aid necessary for the relief of
immediate suffering. However, before any further final or
permanent relief is given, the township trustee shall consider
whether the applicant’s or household’s need can be relieved by
means other than an expenditure of township money.
I.C. § 12-20-17-1. An emergency means “an unpredictable circumstance or a
series of unpredictable circumstances that: (1) place the health or safety of a
household or a member of a household in jeopardy; and (2) cannot be remedied
in a timely manner by means other than township assistance.” I.C. § 12-7-2-
76.5.
[10] The township must develop uniform written standards for the issuance of
township assistance and the processing of applications in compliance with
Article 12-20. See Ind. Code Chapter 12-20-5.5. Article 12-20 “shall be liberally
construed so that the article’s purposes and policies may be accomplished as
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 53A04-1603-MI-611 | May 30, 2017 Page 8 of 13
equitably and expeditiously as possible.” I.C. § 12-20-1-2. If the applicant for
township assistance is not satisfied with the decision of the trustee, the applicant
may appeal to the board of commissioners. I.C. § 12-20-15-1. The board of
commissioners must hold a hearing and issue a written decision on the appeal.
I.C. § 12-20-15-6. “The township trustee or an applicant may appeal a decision
of the board of commissioners to a circuit or superior court with jurisdiction in
the county.” I.C. § 12-20-15-8(a). In the appeal, the trial court “shall be
governed by the township’s township assistance standards for determining
eligibility for granting township assistance in the township. If legally sufficient
standards have not been established, the court shall be guided by the
circumstances of the case.” I.C. § 12-20-15-8(b). The trial court applies a de
novo standard of review and tries the case as an “original cause.” Office of
Trustee of Wayne Tp. v. Brooks, 940 N.E.2d 334, 337 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), trans.
denied.
[11] Lyons argues that she qualified for emergency relief.1 The Trustee’s basis for
denying Lyons’s application was that she did “not have the means to maintain
a monthly rent and electric with [her] income.” The Trustee’s Guidelines
1
Lyons also argues that the Trustee failed to follow various procedural requirements in processing the
application, that the Trustee failed to properly investigate, and that the Trustee discriminated against her
based upon her gender and marital status. Indiana Code Section 12-20-5.5-1(a) provides: “The township
trustee shall process all applications for township assistance according to uniform written standards and
without consideration of the race, creed, nationality, or gender of the applicant or any member of the
applicant’s household.” Lyons has failed to demonstrate that the Trustee’s decision or the trial court’s
decision were affected by the alleged procedural irregularities, investigation, or her gender or marital status.
Rather, the decision appears to have been based solely on the non-emergency circumstances of her claim and
her inability to sustain payment of her rent.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 53A04-1603-MI-611 | May 30, 2017 Page 9 of 13
provide: “The office of the Trustee is designed to provide temporary relief in
emergency situations when a township resident has exhausted other means of
relief.” Ex. J p. 3. The Guidelines further provide that the Trustee “may help
provide shelter as needed on a month-by-month basis. Assistance will be
provided in whatever form necessary to provide or prevent the loss of shelter so
long as such aid constitutes the most economical and practical means of
providing shelter.” Id. at 8. However, the Trustee “may not provide rent or
mortgage payment without proof applicant will be able to continue to pay the
monthly rent or mortgage.” Id.
[12] Lyons argues that the Guidelines conflict with Indiana Code Article 12-20, but
we do not find her argument persuasive. We have held “it is clear that the
legislature extended to the Trustee discretion in the administration of
[township] assistance as regards the nature and extent of the relief to be
afforded given the particular circumstances of the individual applicant.” State
ex rel. Van Buskirk v. Wayne Twp., Marion Cty., 418 N.E.2d 234, 241 (Ind. Ct.
App. 1981). “Clearly, the legislature intended that the poor should receive
necessary relief. The nature and extent of such relief are necessarily left in large
part within the sound discretion of the Trustee.” Id. at 244. Although the
legislature set general guidance for the township’s administration of such funds,
the exact methods used to distribute the funds is left to the township, subject to
the limitations established by the legislature.
[13] The Trustee’s Guidelines state that the Trustee “may not provide rent or
mortgage payment without proof applicant will be able to continue to pay the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 53A04-1603-MI-611 | May 30, 2017 Page 10 of 13
monthly rent or mortgage.” Ex. J p. 8. The Trustee explained during her
testimony that the purpose of this provision is to assist residents with shelter in
the “most practical economical manner.” Tr. p. 136. She explained that
township assistance is “meant to be a one-time assistance to help someone
who’s had an unforeseen expense that threw them totally off, and it jeopardizes
their ability to stay sheltered.” Id. at 137. The Trustee determines whether the
resident will be able to pay the following month’s rent and “get back on track
very quickly.” Id. at 136. The trial court found that the Guideline was not
“inconsistent with Indiana law or justice.” The trial court noted: “The Trustee
is limited to a budget. Guidelines that promote economical and practical means
of providing shelter and require sustainability in non-emergency situations, are
not unreasonable or unjust.” Id. We agree. We find nothing in the Guideline
that is inconsistent with Indiana Code Article 12-20.
[14] Lyons also argues that, even if the Guideline is appropriate, it should not have
prevented her from receiving township assistance. The trial court rejected
Lyons’s arguments, concluding that Lyons’s situation was not an emergency
and that her rental situation was not sustainable. The trial court found:
[T]he Plaintiff was not seeking relief for an unexpected event - an
emergency. Plaintiff carefully calculated her expenses and
potential available benefits and then entered into a rental
arrangement knowing that she had a shortfall, with the hope that
she could obtain Trustee assistance or other benefits would
become available before her full rent was due. Plaintiff was not
seeking relief based upon an unexpected emergency.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 53A04-1603-MI-611 | May 30, 2017 Page 11 of 13
Appellant’s App. Vol. II p. 14. Further, the trial court found that payment of
the rent was not sustainable given Lyons’s income and other expenses. Again,
we agree. The evidence presented at the hearing demonstrated that Lyons
entered into the four-month lease without the income to sustain paying the rent.
Although she attempted to obtain government assistance to help meet her
obligations, she did not receive the assistance in time to pay her entire April
rent, and her May rent was due soon. This was not an unforeseen circumstance
that would qualify as an emergency. Further, at the time of her application,
Lyons was on a waiting list for Section 8 housing that could have been six
months to a year and her application for food stamps and Medicaid had not yet
been approved. There was no indication that Lyons would be able to pay the
monthly rent in the near future. We conclude that the trial court’s findings and
conclusions thereon are not clearly erroneous.
[15] Lyons also contends that she is entitled to damages for the Trustee’s wrongful
denial of her request for township assistance. Because we conclude that the
Trustee’s denial of her request was not clearly erroneous, we will not address
her claim for damages.2
2
Lyons has not identified the statutory basis for her damages claim. The State argues that Indiana Code
Article 12-20 does not provide for damages to an applicant whose claims for township assistance have been
wrongfully denied. The State further notes that Lyons’s failure to file a tort claims notice would bar any tort
claim.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 53A04-1603-MI-611 | May 30, 2017 Page 12 of 13
Conclusion
[16] The trial court’s denial of Lyons’s application for township assistance is not
clearly erroneous. We affirm.
[17] Affirmed.
Kirsch, J., and Robb, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 53A04-1603-MI-611 | May 30, 2017 Page 13 of 13