IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Angela M. Cook, :

Petitioner :

:

v. : No. 594 C.D. 2015

: Submitted: October 9, 2015

Pennsylvania Housing Finance :

Agency, :

Respondent :

BEFORE: HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge

HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Judge1

HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

BY JUDGE LEAVITT FILED: February 19, 2016

Angela Cook, pro se, petitions for review of an adjudication of the 

Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency (Housing Finance Agency) denying her 

application for emergency mortgage assistance under the Homeowner’s 

Emergency Mortgage Assistance Loan Program (Act 91).2 It determined that the 

financial hardship experienced by Cook and her husband, Gilbert Cook, was not 

 

1

This case was assigned to the opinion writer before January 4, 2016, when Judge Leavitt 

became President Judge.

2 Act of December 3, 1959, P.L. 1688, added by the Act of December 23, 1983, P.L. 385, as 

amended, 35 P.S. §§1680.401c–1680.412c. The purpose of Act 91 is “to establish a program 

which will, through emergency mortgage assistance payments, prevent widespread mortgage 

foreclosures ... which result from default caused by circumstances beyond a homeowner’s 

control.” Crawl v. Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency, 511 A.2d 924, 927 (Pa. Cmwlth.

1986) (emphasis omitted).
2

due to circumstances beyond their control, and that the Cooks’ household income 

was sufficient to correct their mortgage delinquency. Discerning no error, we 

affirm.

By letter dated November 3, 2014, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., notified

the Cooks that the mortgage on their residence at 128 Second Lock Road, 

Lancaster, was delinquent in the amount of $4,347 as of August 2014. Mrs. Cook 

met with a consumer credit counseling agency, Tabor Community Services, Inc., to 

apply for a Homeowner’s Emergency Mortgage Assistance Program (HEMAP) 

loan. Tabor forwarded the application to Housing Finance Agency for review. On 

January 5, 2015, Housing Finance Agency notified the Cooks that the loan

application had been denied. Supplemental Reproduced Record at 24b (S.R.R. 

__). The Cooks appealed, and on February 12, 2015, a Hearing Examiner 

conducted a telephonic hearing. Mrs. Cook testified on behalf of herself and her 

husband.

The factual background follows. Mrs. Cook purchased the home in 

2007 for $198,900, before she married Mr. Cook. In 2012, Mrs. Cook refinanced 

the mortgage loan with Wells Fargo, N.A., and added Mr. Cook’s name to the 

deed. Wells Fargo currently holds a first mortgage on the property in the amount 

of $150,000. In 2013, the Cooks took out a second mortgage on the property with 

Lanco Federal Credit Union in the amount of $10,000. Mrs. Cook testified that 

they borrowed this money to complete home repairs after their water heater 

exploded.

Mrs. Cook testified that she and her husband have not filed federal tax 

returns since 2010. She submitted pay statements, bank statements and 2014 W-2 

Forms to document the Cooks’ household income. Mrs. Cook has been employed 
3

with the City of Lancaster as a school crossing guard since 2005. According to her 

W-2 Form, Mrs. Cook’s gross income from the School District in 2014 was 

$5,765. Her net income was $4,990, which, averaged out over 12 months, equals 

$416 in monthly net income from the School District.

3

 Mrs. Cook also works parttime for Friends of the Railroad Museum to supplement her income. A W-2 Form 

issued by the museum reported that Mrs. Cook’s gross income for 2014 was 

$3,646; this resulted in net income of $3,208 for 2014, or $229 per month.4 Mrs. 

Cook also began collecting Social Security benefits in 2004 and currently receives 

$1,496 per month.

In 2009, Mr. Cook began working for the U.S. Coast Guard as a 

contractual employee. His contract expired in June 2013 but was renewed in

August of 2013. Mr. Cook did not work in September 2013 because of a 

government shutdown.5 According to Mr. Cook’s 2014 W-2 Form, his gross 

wages from the Coast Guard were $80,757. After deductions for state and federal 

taxes, 401K/pension and health insurance, Mr. Cook’s net income for 2014 was 

$49,518, or $4,127 per month. Between June and August 2013, Mr. Cook began 

collecting Social Security benefits in the amount of $1,540 per month.

 

3

This figure comports with Housing Finance Agency’s figure of $418.87 at the time of the 

hearing.

4 Mrs. Cook submitted pay statements for her museum job from January 10, 2015, through 

February 20, 2015. These records indicate that Mrs. Cook earned $10.82 per hour and worked 

23, 31.5, 8, 39.5, 14, and 53.5 hours per week during this period. Housing Finance Agency 

calculated Mrs. Cook’s average net monthly income from the museum job to be $1,170 based on 

an average of three pay statements. S.R.R. 2b. 

5 Mrs. Cook did not provide testimony as to whether Mr. Cook was paid during the month of 

September 2013.
4

As of the hearing, the Cooks’ total monthly expenses included a 

monthly housing expense of $1,485 (first mortgage: $1,082, second mortgage: 

$210, utilities: $193), plus $918 in unsecured debt payments, plus $2,318 in living 

expenses such as gasoline, groceries and phone services. This totals $4,721.

Mrs. Cook testified that the couple’s financial troubles began in 

February 2013 when their hot water heater exploded. Although the Cooks secured 

a second mortgage to replace the water heater and repair the damage to their home, 

they then incurred additional expenses of $5,000 to remediate mold damage. 

Although Mrs. Cook did not elaborate on what, if any, other costs beyond the 

$5,000 were incurred, she testified that these additional costs caused the couple to 

fall behind on most, if not all, of their bills. Accordingly, they were not able to set 

aside funds for future mortgage payments. 

Mrs. Cook testified that their financial troubles were exacerbated 

when Mr. Cook had eye surgery in August 2014, requiring him to miss six weeks 

of work. At around the same time, in August 2014, Mrs. Cook had stomach 

surgery. After her recovery Mrs. Cook returned to her crossing guard job in 

September 2014 when the new school year began. Mrs. Cook acknowledged that 

she would not have been paid during her recovery because school was not in 

session.

Based on Mrs. Cook’s testimony and financial documentation for 

2014, the Hearing Examiner found as follows:

Based on a review of the W-2/1099 Statements for 2014, the 

applicants generated total income from employment of $92,243, 

or an average net monthly income of approximately $7,711 

(including social security benefits) after deductions for federal, 

state and local taxes. The monthly expenses reported at appeal 

total $4,721. In this context, it appears that the applicants have 
5

been employed and have had sufficient income to pay the 

mortgage had it been made a priority.

Additionally, the total monthly housing expense alone of 

$1,485 represents only 21% of the average net monthly income 

as calculated at application review and 19% of the average net 

monthly income per the W-2/1099 statements and social 

security benefits for 2014. The Agency feels that 40% of the 

average net monthly income should be sufficient to maintain 

the total housing expense if a homeowner is to be successful in 

maintaining the monthly payments and other household 

expenses. Therefore, it appears that the applicants were 

generating sufficient income to maintain the mortgage payment

and total monthly expenses had it been made a priority.

Also, based on an average net monthly income of $7,711 

compared to the total monthly expenses of $4,721[,] the 

applicants have had a surplus of approximately $2,990 each 

month after all the expenses have been paid including the 

mortgage payment – a total of $35,880 in 2014.

S.R.R. 5b-6b. The Hearing Examiner further reasoned that “the circumstances do 

not account for the total mortgage delinquency or the applicants currently having 

no funds saved to apply toward the total mortgage delinquency of 6 months or 

approximately $6,492 through January 2015. These situations further evidences

[sic] money mismanagement.” S.R.R. 6b. The Hearing Examiner concluded that, 

at all relevant times, the Cooks had sufficient income to make the monthly 

mortgage payment of $1,082 and any hardship they experienced was not the result 

of circumstances beyond their control.6 Mrs. Cook now petitions for this Court’s 

review.

 

6 On March 8, 2015, after the Hearing Examiner rendered her decision, the Cooks submitted 

additional financial information that the Hearing Examiner requested at the hearing. S.R.R. 85b94b. Among the documents were Mr. Cook’s most recent pay statements; no tax filings were 

(Footnote continued on the next page . . .)
6

On appeal,7 Mrs. Cook argues that Housing Finance Agency erred in 

determining that the Cooks’ financial hardship was not due to circumstances 

beyond their control. Specifically, Mrs. Cook challenges Agency’s conclusions 

that the Cooks’ income was sufficient to maintain the mortgage had it been a 

priority and that their financial hardship was due to money mismanagement.

Under Act 91, an applicant for an emergency mortgage assistance 

loan must satisfy certain requirements for eligibility. Section 404-C of Act 91 

states, in relevant part:

(a) No assistance may be made with respect to a mortgage or 

mortgagor under this article unless all of the following are 

established:

* * *

(4) The mortgagor is a permanent resident of this 

Commonwealth and is suffering financial hardship 

due to circumstances beyond the mortgagor’s 

control which render the mortgagor unable to 

correct the delinquency or delinquencies within a 

reasonable time and make full mortgage payments.

* * *

(8) The agency has determined, based on the 

mortgagor’s financial statement, that the 

mortgagor has insufficient household income or 

net worth to correct the delinquency or 

 

(continued . . .)

submitted. The Hearing Examiner reassessed the Cooks’ income and expense data and sent a 

letter to the Cooks advising them that her decision was not impacted by the new financial data. 

S.R.R. 95b.

7 Our review is to determine whether constitutional rights were violated, an error of law was 

committed, or the findings of fact are not supported by substantial evidence. Section 704 of the 

Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa. C.S. §704; Felegie v. Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency, 

523 A.2d 417, 419 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987). 
7

delinquencies within a reasonable period of time 

and make full mortgage payments.

* * *

(10) For purposes of this section, in order to 

determine whether the financial hardship is due to 

circumstances beyond the mortgagor’s control, the 

agency may consider information regarding the 

mortgagor’s employment record, credit history and 

current income.

35 P.S. §1680.404c. As fact-finder, the hearing examiner has complete authority 

over questions of witness credibility and evidentiary weight. Coyne v. 

Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency, 826 A.2d 925, 930 n.13 (Pa. Cmwlth. 

2013).

Mrs. Cook first argues that the record does not support Housing 

Finance Agency’s finding that the Cooks’ income was sufficient to pay the

mortgage had it been a priority. Mrs. Cook contends that their expenses exceeded 

their income due to the expiration of Mr. Cook’s employment contract; the 

couple’s medical issues; Mrs. Cook’s fluctuating seasonal wages from Friends of 

the Railroad Museum; and Mrs. Cook’s receipt of wages as a crossing guard only 

when school is in session. Cook further contends that Housing Finance Agency 

overestimated her income from Friends of the Railroad Museum to be $1,190 per 

month; her actual net monthly income from that job is approximately $400. 

Housing Finance Agency counters that, even taking into account the Cooks’ 

financial setbacks, they had sufficient income to maintain the monthly mortgage 

payment and sufficient means to either recover fully or apply some funds toward 

the delinquency. We agree with Housing Finance Agency and find that the 

Hearing Examiner’s legal conclusions are supported by the record.
8

By the Court’s calculation, the Cooks’ W-2 Forms indicate that Mrs. 

Cook’s net monthly income for 2014 was $2,1418and Mr. Cook’s was $5,667,9for 

a total of $7,808. The Cooks’ total monthly expenses for 2014 were $4,721.10 

Based on these figures, the Cooks had a surplus of $3,087 per month during 2014, 

which should have been sufficient to cover the unexpected $5,000 expenditure the 

Cooks claimed to have incurred after their water heater exploded in 2013.

Mrs. Cook also cites surgeries that she and Mr. Cook underwent in 

August 2014, which left them unable to work. According to Mrs. Cook’s 

testimony, however, Mr. Cook had leave time accrued and was paid for four of the 

six weeks he was out of work. Mrs. Cook would not have been paid for her school 

crossing guard position in August because school was not in session. Stated 

another way, the Cooks did not experience a significant wage loss as a result of the 

surgeries in 2014. Moreover, Mrs. Cook offered no evidence that the surgeries 

resulted in out-of-pocket expenses for the Cooks. Thus, because none of the 

household income was diverted to medical expenses, the entirety of the Cooks’ 

income, including Mr. Cook’s income and their combined Social Security benefits, 

could have covered the Wells Fargo mortgage payment and all of their other 

regular monthly expenses.

Mrs. Cook also challenges Housing Finance Agency’s finding that the 

Cooks’ hardship was attributable to money mismanagement. She asserts that she 

always prioritized her mortgage payments, which she had automatically deducted 

 

8

$416 (School District) + $229 (Museum) + $1,496 (Social Security) = $2,141.

9

$4,167 (Coast Guard) + $1,540 (Social Security) = $5,667.

10 $1,485 (housing expense, including first and second mortgages and utilities) + $918 

(unsecured debt) + $2,318 (living expenses, including groceries, cell phone, automobile, 

prescriptions and co-pays) = $4,721.
9

from her checking account beginning in 2007 when she purchased the home. Mrs. 

Cook points to this arrangement as evidence of her fiscal responsibility. 

Notwithstanding Mrs. Cook’s efforts to ensure her mortgage was timely paid for 

more than five years, we conclude that Housing Finance Agency’s finding is 

supported by the record. That the Cooks had surplus income of $3,087 per month 

from January through August 2014 and insufficient funds to pay their mortgage

beginning in August is evidence of money mismanagement. This conclusion is 

buttressed by the fact that the Cooks pay approximately $900 per month toward 

unsecured credit card debt, which by its nature does not jeopardize ownership of 

their home. This Court has consistently held that voluntary decisions that 

ultimately result in financial hardship are not considered circumstances beyond a 

mortgagor’s control. Willard v. Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency, 533 A.2d 

794, 795 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987).

For all of the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Pennsylvania Housing 

Finance Agency’s determination that the Cooks were not eligible for an emergency 

mortgage assistance loan under Section 404-C of Act 91, 35 P.S. §1680.404c.

 ______________________________

 MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Judge
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Angela M. Cook, :

Petitioner :

:

v. : No. 594 C.D. 2015

:

Pennsylvania Housing Finance :

Agency, :

Respondent :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 19th day of February, 2016, the order of the 

Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency in the above-captioned matter, dated 

March 7, 2015, is AFFIRMED.

 ______________________________

 MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Judge