Court Opinion

ID: 9411248
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-26 14:09:09.810242+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:05.707398
License: Public Domain

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Todd Elliott Koger,                           :
                              Petitioner      :
                                              :
              v.                              :    No. 777 C.D. 2022
                                              :    Submitted: March 31, 2023
Pennsylvania Housing Finance                  :
Agency,                                       :
                       Respondent             :

BEFORE:       HONORABLE CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge
              HONORABLE ELLEN CEISLER, Judge
              HONORABLE LORI A. DUMAS, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION
BY JUDGE DUMAS                                                       FILED: July 26, 2023

              Todd Elliott Koger (Koger) pro se petitions for review of the order of
the Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency (PHFA, or the Agency),1 which deemed
him ineligible for federally funded, homeowners’ financial assistance. After careful
review, we affirm the determination and deny Koger’s additional applications for
relief filed in this Court.
                                   I. BACKGROUND
              In February 2022, Koger applied for PAHAF assistance for the subject
property located at 515 Kelly Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15221 (subject
property).    See Application, 2/4/22, at 1-8.          Following a review of Koger’s
supporting documentation, the Agency determined that Koger was ineligible for

       1
         The Pennsylvania Homeowner Assistance Fund (PAHAF) is a federally funded program
established under Section 3206 of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021. See 15 U.S.C. § 9058d.
To implement this program and distribute the federal funds, the Pennsylvania General Assembly
authorized the formation of the PHFA. See the Act of April 9, 1929, P.L. 343, as amended, added
by the Act of June 30, 2021, P.L. 62, No. 24, Cl. 72., 72 P.S. § 101-F - 103-F (the Act).
assistance because he did not hold legal or equitable title to the subject property. See
Determination, 5/19/22, at 1.               Koger appealed the determination.                   See
Note/Communication, 6/27/22, at 1. In subsequent emails, Koger acknowledged
that Todd Elliott Koger, Jr.,2 was the sole owner with legal and equitable title to the
subject property. See Email, 6/21/22, at 1. For that reason, the Agency appeal
committee also deemed Koger ineligible for PAHAF assistance. See Determination,
6/27/22, at 1. Koger timely petitioned this Court for review.
                                           II. ISSUES
               On appeal, Koger does not meaningfully challenge the Agency’s
determination that he was not the record owner of the property and, thus, not entitled
to funds.3 Rather, Koger’s arguments concern the alleged findings of the Allegheny
County Court of Common Pleas in a tax upset sale matter and his interpretation of
the effect of the Agency’s determination on that matter. See Pet’r’s Br. at 7.
                                      III. DISCUSSION4
               It is within the Agency’s purview to administer the Homeowners’
Assistance Grant Program by providing the following services to eligible

       2
           Todd Elliott Koger, Jr. is Todd Elliott Koger’s son. See C.R. 31, Email, 6/6/22.
       3
           We caution Koger that while we liberally construe pro se pleadings, this Court cannot act
as petitioner’s counsel and develop his arguments for him. See C.M. v. Pa. State Police, 269 A.3d
1280, 1285 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2022) (stating that this Court is “neither obliged, nor even particularly
equipped, to develop an argument for a party. To do so places the Court in the conflicting roles of
advocate and neutral arbiter” (citation omitted)); Finfinger v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev.,
854 A.2d 636, 639 n.5 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) (acknowledging “the frequent necessity, and incumbent
difficulty, of pro se representation by unemployed claimants . . . [and noting that], it is axiomatic
that a layperson who chooses to represent himself in a legal proceeding must assume the risk that
his lack of expertise and legal training may prove to be his undoing” (citation omitted)).
         4
           This Court’s scope of review is limited to determining whether constitutional rights were
violated, whether an error of law was committed, or whether necessary findings of fact are
supported by substantial evidence. Rehab. Ctr. & Workshop, Inc. v. Commc’n on Charitable
Orgs., 405 A.2d 980, 983 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1979); 2 Pa. C.S. §704. Substantial evidence is defined as

                                                 2
individuals: mortgage payment assistance; financial assistance to allow a
homeowner to reinstate a mortgage or to pay other housing-related costs related to a
period of forbearance, delinquency or default; principal reduction; facilitating
interest rate reductions; payment assistance, including for utilities, internet service,
insurance, and fees; any other assistance to promote housing stability for
homeowners, “including preventing mortgage delinquency, default, foreclosure,
[post foreclosure] eviction or ejectment of a homeowner, or the loss of utility or
home energy services, to the extent permitted by Federal law or guidance.” See
Section 102f of the Act, 72 P.S. § 102-F. The Agency itself is tasked with the power
and duty to make plans for the use of the Commonwealth’s share of the funds as well
as to implement and administer the program in accordance with federal law and
guidance. See Section 103 of the Act, 72 P.S. 103-F.
               Instantly, the Agency appeal committee determined that by Koger’s
own admission, he was not eligible for the PAHAF program.                           See Appeal
Determination, 6/27/22, at 1. Based upon the determination, the record, and the
applicable policy, the appeal committee did not violate Koger’s constitutional rights,
commit an error of law, or fail to support its findings of fact with substantial
evidence. Rehab. Ctr. & Workshop, Inc, 405 A.2d at 983; 2 Pa. C.S. §704.
Accordingly, to the extent that Koger challenges that finding, we affirm the order of
the Agency.
               To the extent that Koger has raised in his brief and numerous filings
before this Court issues that go beyond the jurisdiction of the Agency’s

such relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.
Younkin v. Bureau of Pro. & Occupational Affairs, 774 A.2d 1281 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001). For
questions of law and statutory construction, our review is plenary. Malt Beverages Distribs. Assoc.
v. Pa. Liquor Control Bd., 8 A.3d 885, 892 (Pa. 2010).

                                                3
determination regarding his eligibility for federal homeowners’ assistance funds, we
deny all outstanding motions.5
                                    IV. CONCLUSION
               Accordingly, we affirm the order of the PHFA and deny Koger’s
applications for relief.

                                                    LORI A. DUMAS, Judge

       5
          Koger has filed five petitions raising substantially similar issues, namely, that the
Wilkinsburg School District and the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas have allegedly
and in error sued him for back taxes owed on the subject property. See Ancillary Pet. for Rev.,
7/22/22, at 1-8; Appl. to Consolidate, 9/28/22 at 7-14; Appl. for Relief, 9/27/22, at 2-10; Second
Appl. for Summary Relief, 12/4/22, at 1-3; Pet. for Emergency Relief, 5/20/23, at 6-14. All of
these petitions concern an Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas matter, docketed at GD-05-
18165, which is not currently on appeal before this Court, and are beyond the scope of the
Agency’s jurisdiction to consider. See 72 P.S. § 101-F - 103-F (discussing, generally, the purview
of the PHFA).

                                                4
         IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Todd Elliott Koger,                     :
                         Petitioner     :
                                        :
            v.                          :   No. 777 C.D. 2022
                                        :
Pennsylvania Housing Finance            :
Agency,                                 :
                       Respondent       :

                                      ORDER
            AND NOW, this 26th day of July, 2023, the order of the Pennsylvania
Housing Finance Agency, entered June 27, 2022, is AFFIRMED. Todd Elliott
Koger’s Ancillary Petition for Review, filed July 22, 2022; Application for Relief,
filed September 27, 2022; Second Application for Summary Relief, filed December
4, 2022; and Petition for Emergency Relief, filed May 20, 2023, are DENIED.

                                       LORI A. DUMAS, Judge