2023 IL App (2d) 220448-U 

No. 2-22-0448 

Order filed June 30, 2023 

NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23(b) and is not precedent 

except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).

______________________________________________________________________________ 

IN THE

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

SECOND DISTRICT

______________________________________________________________________________ 

SEHIGHYA SMITH, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court 

) of McHenry County. 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) No. 22-MR-46 

) 

McHENRY COUNTY HOUSING ) 

AUTHORITY and KIM ULBRICH, ) 

in Her Official Capacity as Executive ) 

Director of the McHenry County Housing ) 

Authority, ) Honorable 

) Kevin G. Costello, 

Defendants-Appellees. ) Judge, Presiding. 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

JUSTICE JORGENSEN delivered the judgment of the court. 

Justices Hutchinson and Schostok concurred in the judgment. 

ORDER

¶ 1 Held: (1) Housing authority’s decision to terminate plaintiff’s benefits was not against the 

manifest weight of the evidence where the record clearly showed that plaintiff 

persistently failed to submit documentation required for her eligibility review. 

(2) Plaintiff forfeited her claim that the housing authority harassed and stalked her, 

and, in any event, the claim lacked merit. 

¶ 2 Plaintiff, Sehighya Smith, appeals the judgment of the McHenry County circuit court 

affirming the decision of the McHenry County Housing Authority (MCHA) to terminate her 

housing benefits for her failure to provide required documentation during a review of her eligibility 
2023 IL App (2d) 220448-U 

- 2 - 

for benefits. Because the decision to terminate was not against the manifest weight of the evidence, 

we affirm.

¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 4 Plaintiff received federal housing-assistance benefits under a voucher program 

administered by MCHA. MCHA is a public housing authority (PHA) that receives funding from 

the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). HUD provides MCHA 

with rental subsidies (i.e., vouchers), which MCHA distributes to landlords on behalf of the 

program’s recipients so they can afford decent, safe, and sanitary housing in the private market. 

See 42 U.S.C. § 1437f(C)(4), (o)(1)(A) (2018). The voucher program is governed by HUD’s 

regulations, codified in 24 C.F.R. Pt. 982 (2021) (Part 982). Additionally, Part 982 requires each 

PHA to “adopt a written administrative plan that establishes local policies for administration of 

the program in accordance with HUD requirements.” 24 C.F.R. § 982.54(a) (2021). In particular, 

the administrative plan must “state[ ] PHA policy on matters for which the PHA has discretion to 

establish local policies.” 24 C.F.R. § 982.54(a) (2021).

¶ 5 In August 2019, plaintiff was admitted to the voucher program. As part of an annual review 

in August 2020, plaintiff submitted a nonincome affidavit averring that she had no income from 

any source, including wages, child support, social security, unemployment, or any other source of 

government aid. However, she failed to complete and submit all documents required for 

participation under the zero-income option of the voucher program. On August 31, 2020, MCHA 

sent plaintiff a letter (1) notifying her that her benefits were terminated for her failure to submit 

the required documentation and (2) advising her of her right to an informal hearing. Eventually, 

the issue was resolved, and MCHA did not terminate plaintiff from the voucher program in 2020.
2023 IL App (2d) 220448-U 

- 3 - 

¶ 6 Because plaintiff reported zero income during her August 2020 annual review, she was 

thereafter required to participate in a semiannual zero-income review. As part of the semiannual 

review, MCHA required plaintiff to submit documentation verifying her lack of income. Failure 

to participate in the semiannual review could result in plaintiff’s termination from the voucher 

program.

¶ 7 On January 8, 2021, MCHA mailed plaintiff a letter notifying her of the semiannual review

of her zero-income status. The letter provided a list of the documents she was required to complete 

and return, including verification and consent forms, a nonincome affidavit, a personal declaration, 

and an applicant/tenant certification form. The letter asked plaintiff to return the required 

documents no later than January 29, 2021. The letter also reminded plaintiff that failure to return 

the documents might result in her termination from the voucher program.

¶ 8 On February 2, 2021, an MCHA caseworker made a follow-up telephone call to plaintiff. 

The caseworker left a voicemail reminding plaintiff of the need to submit the zero-income 

documentation.

¶ 9 Because plaintiff did not contact MCHA or submit the documentation, MCHA sent 

plaintiff a letter on February 24, 2021, advising her that she was terminated from the voucher 

program for “[f]ailure to fulfill family obligations by failing to submit necessary documentation 

for [her] 6[-]month zero[-]income recertification as required.” The letter advised defendant that 

she had the right to an informal hearing on MCHA’s decision if she requested it by March 6, 2021.

¶ 10 On March 1, 2021, MCHA received plaintiff’s request for an informal hearing. On March 

2, 2021, Karen Seager, MCHA’s section 8 coordinator, emailed plaintiff and explained that MCHA 

would be willing to vacate the termination of benefits if plaintiff completed the zero-income 

review, including all requested documentation, by March 12, 2021. Seager’s email included forms 
2023 IL App (2d) 220448-U 

- 4 - 

for plaintiff to complete: a personal declaration, a nonincome affidavit, and an applicant/tenant 

certification. She also requested that plaintiff submit three months of current checking account 

statements and two months of current utility bills. Seager further included a list of documents 

plaintiff needed to submit so that MCHA could calculate her income, assets, and deductions. 

Seager advised plaintiff to carefully review the list. Seager also asked plaintiff not to leave any 

parts of the forms blank and to sign and put full dates on all paperwork. Finally, she advised 

plaintiff that MCHA would schedule an informal hearing if it did not receive all required 

paperwork by March 12, 2021.

¶ 11 On March 11, 2021, as part of a prehearing review, MCHA obtained information from the 

Illinois Department of Human Services (DHS) that, in August 2020, plaintiff started receiving 

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) benefits and had been receiving $431 in 

monthly TANF benefits since September 2020. The participants in the review were Seager, Kim 

Ulbrich (MCHA’s executive director), and Holly Lyons (MCHA’s deputy director). The factors 

they considered were the “[s]eriousness of the [c]ase[,]” the “[e]xtant [sic] of participation or 

culpability of individual family members[.]” “[m]itigating circumstances related to the disability 

of a family member[,]” and “[t]he effect of denial or termination of assistance on other family 

members who were not involved in the action or failure[.]” See 24 C.F.R. § 982.552(c)(2)(i) 

(2021). The review participants agreed that if plaintiff did not complete and submit the required 

documentation by 4 p.m. on March 12, 2021, MCHA would proceed with the termination of 

benefits.

¶ 12 On March 12, 2021, MCHA received an email from plaintiff that included the personal 

declaration, the nonincome affidavit, and the applicant/tenant certification. Plaintiff included no 

other documentation with the email.
2023 IL App (2d) 220448-U 

- 5 - 

¶ 13 Later that same day, Seager advised plaintiff by email that she had failed to complete the 

employer section of the personal declaration and still needed to submit three months of current 

bank statements, two months of current utility bills, and documentation of her TANF benefits. As 

in the March 2, 2021, email, Seager attached a list of documents plaintiff would need to submit for 

MCHA to calculate her income, assets, or deductions. She again advised plaintiff to carefully 

review the list. She further told plaintiff that if MCHA did not receive her completed personal 

declaration and other required documentation by 4 p.m. that day, MCHA would hold an informal 

hearing on March 23, 2021.

¶ 14 On March 14, 2021, MCHA received an email from plaintiff with two months of electric 

bills, one month of gas bills, and two months of bank statements. Plaintiff stated that she would 

not complete the employer section of her personal declaration or submit any documentation 

regarding her TANF benefits.

¶ 15 On March 23, 2021, an informal hearing was held before hearing officer Melissa Taylor. 

Seagar testified that MCHA sought termination of benefits for plaintiff’s violation of “family 

obligations” under section 982.551 (24 C.F.R. § 982.551 (2021)). Under section 982.551(b)(2), a 

“participant family” under the voucher program “must supply any information requested by the 

PHA or HUD for use in a regularly scheduled reexamination or interim reexamination of family 

income and composition in accordance with HUD requirements.” 24 C.F.R. § 982.551(b)(2) 

(2021). Seagar explained that MCHA terminated plaintiff from the voucher program because she 

failed to provide all documentation MCHA sought under section 982.551(b)(2).

¶ 16 In her testimony, plaintiff agreed that Seager’s version of events “did happen.” According 

to plaintiff, she submitted on March 12, 2021, all documentation she had available. In response, 

Seager testified that there was still paperwork outstanding. According to Seager, plaintiff needed 
2023 IL App (2d) 220448-U 

- 6 - 

to amend her personal declaration, submit documentation regarding her TANF benefits, and 

provide another month of bank statements.

¶ 17 The hearing officer submitted a written order upholding MCHA’s termination of plaintiff 

from the voucher program. The officer found that plaintiff had failed to provide or complete all 

required documentation and had no intention of completing and supplying those documents. The 

officer also noted that she had reviewed MCHA’s evidence and considered (1) “[t]he seriousness 

of the case,” (2) “[t]he effect that denial of assistance may have on the other member of the family 

[i.e., plaintiff’s minor child] who was not involved in the action or failure to act,” and (3) “[t]he 

effect [that denial of assistance] will have on [plaintiff], the displacement of said [plaintiff,] and 

the potential of any future housing for [plaintiff’s] family.” See 24 C.F.R. § 982.552(c)(2)(i) 

(2021).

¶ 18 Plaintiff then filed a complaint in the circuit court of McHenry County for a writ of 

certiorari, seeking review of the order approving the termination of her voucher benefits. The 

complaint alleged that the plaintiff had been evicted from her apartment because of the termination. 

The complaint further alleged that plaintiff had provided all documents required to determine 

eligibility and that the hearing officer’s decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence. 

Plaintiff asked the trial court to reverse MCHA’s termination of her benefits.

¶ 19 In a written order, the trial court affirmed the decision to terminate benefits. The court 

noted that it had considered the record of the administrative proceeding and the parties’ oral 

arguments. The court found that the record contradicted plaintiff’s claim that she had complied 

with program requirements. The court further noted that plaintiff (1) failed to provide any 

documentation regarding her TANF benefits and (2) falsely stated in her nonincome affidavit that 
2023 IL App (2d) 220448-U 

- 7 - 

she was not receiving TANF benefits. The court commented that MCHA’s decision to terminate 

plaintiff’s benefits “was not done lightly” and was amply supported by the record.

¶ 20 Plaintiff, in turn, filed this timely appeal.

¶ 21 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 22 On appeal, plaintiff contends, pro se, that we should (1) reverse MCHA’s decision to 

terminate her voucher benefits and (2) grant her financial compensation for “stress, humiliation, 

pain, [and] suffering” caused by MCHA’s “abuse, stalking[,] and harassment.” 

¶ 23 “The appeal of a trial court’s ruling on a petition for certiorari seeking review of an 

administrative decision is treated the same way as any other appeal for administrative review.” 

Stewart v. Boone County Housing Authority, 2018 IL App (2d) 180052, ¶ 22. “Specifically, we 

review the decision of the administrative agency, not the decision of the trial court, and the record 

only of the administrative proceedings.” Stewart, 2018 IL App (2d) 180052, ¶ 22. The applicable 

standard of review, which determines the degree of deference given to the agency’s decision, 

depends upon whether the question presented is one of fact, one of law, or a mixed question of fact 

and law. Stewart, 2018 IL App (2d) 180052, ¶ 22. An administrative agency’s factual findings 

are considered prima facie true and correct (Mireless v. Dart, 2023 IL App (1st) 221090, ¶ 56) and 

are disturbed only if they are against the manifest weight of the evidence (Stewart, 2018 IL App 

(2d) 180052, ¶ 22). A factual finding is against the manifest weight of the evidence only where 

the opposite conclusion is clearly apparent. Beggs v. Board of Education of Murphysboro 

Community Unit School District No. 186, 2016 IL 120236, ¶ 50. 

¶ 24 Here, the evidence clearly established that plaintiff failed to supply the documentation 

MCHA required for the semiannual review of plaintiff’s eligibility for benefits. Despite proper 

notice and several opportunities to comply, plaintiff submitted only some of the required 
2023 IL App (2d) 220448-U 

- 8 - 

information. After plaintiff’s initial failure, MCHA made clear to plaintiff that it would terminate 

her benefits if she failed to submit the required documents. Nonetheless, MCHA gave plaintiff 

another opportunity to provide the information. Although plaintiff submitted some of the 

information, she expressly refused to complete the employer section of the personal declaration

and to submit documents related to her TANF benefits. She also failed to provide the needed 

banking statements and utility bills. Her failures justified MCHA’s termination of her voucher 

benefits.1

 Thus, the hearing officer’s decision upholding the termination of plaintiff’s voucher 

benefits was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. 

¶ 25 We further note that plaintiff exhibited a pattern of failing to comply with MCHA’s 

requests for documentation. Her original failure was during the annual review in August 2020. 

After MCHA advised her in August 2020 of its intent to terminate her from the voucher program, 

plaintiff eventually complied. Again, in 2021, when plaintiff balked at submitting completed 

forms, MCHA gave plaintiff every opportunity to comply, yet she persistently refused. Her 

1

We note that it appears that MCHA sought discretionary as opposed to mandatory 

termination. See Stewart, 2018 IL App (2d) 180052, ¶ 26 (comparing mandatory and discretionary 

termination under Part 982 (24 C.F.R. Pt. 928 (2021)). However, plaintiff raises no issue in that 

regard. We nonetheless observe that, in rendering her decision, the hearing officer considered

factors bearing on discretionary termination, such as (1) “[t]he seriousness of the case,” (2) “[t]he 

effect that denial of assistance may have on the other member of the family [i.e., plaintiff’s minor 

child] who was not involved in the action or failure to act,” and (3) “[t]he effect [that denial of 

assistance] will have on [plaintiff], the displacement of [plaintiff,] and the potential of any future 

housing for [plaintiff’s] family.” See 24 C.F.R. § 982.552(c)(2)(i) (2021).
2023 IL App (2d) 220448-U 

- 9 - 

repeated and willful failure to comply with the voucher program’s requirements further justified 

her termination. 

¶ 26 As for plaintiff’s other appellate contention—that she is entitled to money damages for 

MCHA’s conduct—we note that she did not allege such a claim in her complaint or otherwise 

pursue such relief in the trial court. Thus, she forfeited the issue. See Moore v. Board of Education 

of the City of Chicago, 2016 IL App (1st) 133148, ¶ 35 (issues raised for first time on appeal are 

forfeited). Even if we were to address the issue’s merits, there is no evidence in the record to 

support any claim that MCHA harassed, stalked, or otherwise injured plaintiff. 

¶ 27 III. CONCLUSION

¶ 28 For the reasons stated, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court of McHenry County. 

¶ 29 Affirmed.