Yasmin Rodriguez

Intro to Paralegal Professor Rose

Friday 9am
Brief #1
Speelman v. Bellingham Housing Authority (BHA)
273 P. 3d 1035 Court of Appeals of Washington, Division one
April 9, 2012
Facts:
BHA administers section 8 to eligible families. Families that receive section 8 must
accept family obligations in order to receive benefits.
2/2011 - Speelman accepts the section 8 and moves in with 2 small children to a
subsidized apartment.
Speelman was on probation and BHA knew.
4/28/11 -Speelman was sentenced to 75 days in jail.
Speelman did not notify BHA of her absence or of her daughter staying at the
apartment.
Authorities were called to the home of Speelman for a complaint regarding her
children; Speelmans daughter and finance were at her home at the time.
Officer Lowell English ran a background on all three, Speelman, her daughter and
finance and discovered Speelman was in jail and that her daughter was living at the
home.
6/2/11 -BHA sent a notice to Speelmans home terminating her benefits for violation of
the family obligations.
Speelman requested a hearing 7days after the due date and was denied based on it
being untimely and she challenged the trial court.
The trial court denied Speelmans request for a preliminary injunction.
Issue:
Was Speelmans substantive and procedural due process rights violated when BHA sent
her the termination notice knowing she was in jail? And does she meet the requirements
for a preliminary injunction?
Holding:
The court held that contrary to BHAs contention, Speelman is not asking for an
exception to be applied to her case. She is asking that she be given the process due to her
and everyone else in her situation. Therefore, the equities favor granting Speelman a
preliminary injunction and that the trial court should have granted her motion. The court
noted The stakes are simply too high for the welfare recipient, and the possibility for

honest error or irritable misjudgment too great, to allow termination of aid without giving
the recipient a chance, if he so desires, to be fully informed of the case against him so that
he may contest its basis and produce evidence in rebuttal.

Rationale
A party seeking a preliminary injunction must show (1) a clear legal or equitable right (2)
a well-grounded fear of immediate invasion of that right, and (3) the acts complained of
have or will result in actual and substantial injury.
(1) Speelman contends that BHA violated her constitutional right to procedural due
process by providing insufficient notice of its termination decision. Due process
requires the government to provide notice reasonable calculated, under all the
circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and
afford them an opportunity to present their objections Speelman contends that
due process required BHA to send the termination notice to the Whatcom County
Jail. The court agreed. The court stated even if BHAs policy is reasonable
calculated to provide notice in normal circumstances, the special circumstances of
this case triggered BHAs obligation to do something else. Because BHA knew at
the time it sent the termination letter that Speelman would not receive it, this letter
was not reasonably calculated under the circumstances to provide notice. It was
constitutionally insufficient. A reasonably calculated action would have been to
send the notice to the Whatcom County jail in lieu of or in addition to sending it
to Speelmans address. BHA argued that the case was similar to State v. Nelson
and sited three reason why. First, BHA claims there is nothing in the record
indicating that BHA knew that Speelman was incarcerated on 6/2/11, the date the
termination notice was sent out. The court disagreed saying that in the letter itself
BHA showed actual knowledge that Speelman was in jail. Second, the court also
stated that a partys ability to take steps to safeguard its interests does not relieve
the State of its constitutional obligation. And lastly the court agrees that Due
process does not require actual notice. Speelman does not contend that, she
simplty contends that notice was not reasonably calculated to inform her of BHAs
termination decision. BHAs arguments that State v. Nelson should apply were
unconvincing to the court. BHA violated Speelmans procedure due process.
(2) Speelman has shown a fear of immediate invasion of the right to due process
before the government interferes with her property interest. BHA has already
interfered with that right by terminating her federal benefits after giving her
defective notice, which effectively deprived her of an opportunity to be heard.
Speelman showed actual and substantial injury.
(3) Due to the failure of notice, she missed the deadline to appeal and now faces
eviction without the benefit of a hearing. As the United States Supreme Court
stated in Goldberg v. Kelly, the importance of a hearing in situation like this one
is paramount.

Based on the 3 criterias needed for a preliminary injunction, Speelman meets the
requirements for a preliminary injunction. The court reversed and remanded further
proceedings consistent with this opinion.