NSPIRE Wire is independent and not affiliated with HUD.
Event / Action Date:Aug 25, 2026
Originally reported by FAA News.
A New Jersey court has ordered the Lakewood Housing Authority to conduct a new administrative hearing after a Housing Choice Voucher participant challenged the process the agency used to terminate her rental assistance.
According to FAA News, Lakewood resident Juliana DePazza represented herself in an Ocean County Superior Court challenge to the housing authority's termination of a federally funded voucher issued through the Family Unification Program.
FAA News reports that Superior Court Assignment Judge Francis R. Hodgson Jr. ordered the Lakewood Housing Authority to conduct a new hearing within 45 days and provide DePazza with new notice addressing all allegations the authority intends to raise at the hearing.
The ruling does not reinstate DePazza's voucher or resolve the underlying allegations. Instead, it sends the matter back to the housing authority for a new administrative proceeding.
A central issue in the case was whether DePazza received adequate notice of the allegations that would be considered during the administrative process.
According to FAA News, the housing authority's termination notice identified allegations involving property conditions at DePazza's former residence and allegations concerning her conduct during a subsequent hotel stay.
DePazza argued that allegations involving another location were introduced during her January 2026 administrative hearing even though those allegations had not been included in the termination notice she received.
Her challenge relied in part on federal Housing Choice Voucher hearing requirements and the principle that a participant should receive notice of the grounds supporting a proposed termination before being required to defend against them.
The Lakewood Housing Authority defended its decision and argued that evidence in the administrative record supported termination, according to FAA News.
The court's reported order, however, requires the administrative process to be conducted again with new notice addressing all allegations the authority intends to raise.
The dispute carries broader compliance implications for public housing authorities administering the Housing Choice Voucher program.
Under 24 C.F.R. § 982.555, PHAs must provide participants an opportunity for an informal hearing for certain decisions involving the family's circumstances or conduct, including a decision to terminate assistance because of the family's action or failure to act.
For applicable termination decisions, federal regulations require the PHA to provide prompt written notice containing a brief statement of the reasons for the decision. The notice must also inform the family of its right to request an informal hearing and the deadline for requesting that hearing.
The regulation establishes additional procedural protections governing the hearing process, including opportunities for the family to examine relevant documents, present evidence and question witnesses.
The Lakewood Housing Authority's Housing Choice Voucher administrative plan also establishes procedures governing termination decisions and informal hearings.
Those procedures address notice to participants, evidence considered during hearings and the opportunity for participants and the housing authority to present evidence and question witnesses.
That distinction is important for housing authorities: compliance with the substantive grounds for terminating assistance does not eliminate the need to follow the required administrative process.
The Lakewood case provides a compliance reminder for PHAs nationwide.
When a housing authority seeks to terminate voucher assistance, the strength of the underlying evidence is only one part of a defensible administrative decision. The notice and hearing process itself must also comply with applicable federal requirements and the PHA's own administrative policies.
PHAs should ensure that termination notices accurately identify the reasons supporting the proposed action and that allegations relied upon during an informal hearing are consistent with the notice and applicable procedural requirements.
Deficiencies in notice or hearing procedures can create litigation risk and potentially require an agency to repeat its administrative process even when it believes substantive grounds exist for terminating assistance.
For DePazza, the case now returns to the Lakewood Housing Authority.
According to FAA News, the authority has been ordered to conduct a new hearing within 45 days after providing notice addressing all allegations it intends to raise.
The ultimate disposition of DePazza's Housing Choice Voucher remains unresolved.
PHAs should review voucher termination notices to ensure they clearly identify the grounds for the proposed action; confirm that allegations relied upon during an informal hearing are consistent with the notice provided to the participant; maintain a complete administrative record; and verify that hearing procedures comply with 24 C.F.R. § 982.555 and the agency's current administrative plan.
The case is a compliance reminder for PHAs administering Housing Choice Vouchers: a termination decision involves both substantive grounds and required procedural protections. Deficiencies in notice or the informal-hearing process can expose an agency decision to judicial challenge and potentially require the administrative process to be repeated.
Public housing authorities, Housing Choice Voucher administrators, Section 8 compliance staff, hearing officers, housing authority counsel, participating property owners and voucher recipients.
A New Jersey Superior Court judge has ordered the Lakewood Housing Authority to conduct a new hearing after a Housing Choice Voucher participant challenged the process used to terminate her assistance. According to original reporting by FAA News, the court ordered the authority to provide new notice addressing all allegations it intends to raise and conduct the rehearing within 45 days. The dispute highlights federal requirements governing notice and informal hearings when PHAs seek to terminate voucher assistance.
Editorial Desk
The NSPIRE Wire Editorial Desk publishes source-verified reporting and analysis covering HUD policy, NSPIRE inspections, affordable housing finance, development, transactions, and the people shaping the industry.
Know something we should know? Have documents, corrections, or related developments on this topic? Send an editorial tip to our reporters.
