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 The following month Speelman’s probation was revoked, and she was sentenced to 75 days in jail.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…
Speelman then sued BHA in superior court for a preliminary injunction.
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
violated.
Rationale: The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division one expressed its reasoning as follows:
1. Speelman met the three requirements of a preliminary injunction. Speelman’s constitutional right to procedural due process was violated when an insufficient notice of termination was sent. Due process requires the government to provide notice reasonably calculated under all circumstances, to notify the party as well as to grant them the opportunity to object the decision. The notice should have been sent to the jail she was incarcerated in, instead of her apartment.
2. BHA claims there was nothing on record indicating was incarcerated on the the date the termination letter was sent. However, the termination letter serves as evidence BHA did have knowledge the plaintiff was incarcerated at that time. BHA argues they did not know the termination letter would not reach Speelman. Furthermore, she should have forwarded her mail to the jail or notified BHA of an address change. Because the plaintiff did not notify BHA of a change of address does not free the state from their constitutional obligation.
This court finds BHA violated Speelman’s procedural due process rights, and is now facing eviction without a hearing. Speelman is requesting she be given her due process. The trial court should have granted her a motion for a preliminary injunction. Speelman upholds the criteria of a preliminary injunction, so we impede the decision of the trial court.
Speelman then sued BHA in superior court for a preliminary injunction.
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
violated.
Rationale: The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division one expressed its reasoning as follows:
1. Speelman met the three requirements of a preliminary injunction. Speelman’s constitutional right to procedural due process was violated when an insufficient notice of termination was sent. Due process requires the government to provide notice reasonably calculated under all circumstances, to notify the party as well as to grant them the opportunity to object the decision. The notice should have been sent to the jail she was incarcerated in, instead of her apartment.
2. BHA claims there was nothing on record indicating was incarcerated on the the date the termination letter was sent. However, the termination letter serves as evidence BHA did have knowledge the plaintiff was incarcerated at that time. BHA argues they did not know the termination letter would not reach Speelman. Furthermore, she should have forwarded her mail to the jail or notified BHA of an address change. Because the plaintiff did not notify BHA of a change of address does not free the state from their constitutional obligation.
This court finds BHA violated Speelman’s procedural due process rights, and is now facing eviction without a hearing. Speelman is requesting she be given her due process. The trial court should have granted her a motion for a preliminary injunction. Speelman upholds the criteria of a preliminary injunction, so we impede the decision of the trial court.