Barzilayev v. PHFA – Cmwtlh. Court –
August 17, 2016 – unreported* memorandum decision
Held: PHFA did not err when it decided to not
include a speculative, anticipated award of spousal support in the calculation
of Homeowner’s monthly income.
We do
not review the record to determine if a homeowner’s circumstances “militate
toward a grant of emergency assistance”; rather we review only to see if there
is substantial evidence to support the necessary findings, or to ensure that an
error of law was not committed. Mull v. Pa. Hous. Fin. Agency, 529 A.2d 1185,
1188 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987). “Substantial evidence has been defined as such
relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion.” Cullins v. Pa. Hous. Fin. Agency, 623 A.2d 951, 953 (Pa. Cmwlth.
1993). To prove abuse of discretion, “the petitioner must persuade us that the
fact finder capriciously and arbitrarily disregarded evidence which one of
ordinary intelligence could not possibly challenge or entertain the slightest
doubt as to its truth.” Koch v. Pa. Hous. Fin. Agency, 505 A.2d 649, 650-51
(Pa. Cmwlth. 1986) (emphasis added).
----------------------
*An unreported
Commonwealth Court case may not be cited binding precedent but can be cited for
its persuasive value. See 210 Pa.
Code § 69.414(b) and Pa. R.A.P.
3716
If the case is
old, the link may have become stale and may not work, but you can use the case
name, court, and date to find the opinion in another source (e.g., Westlaw,
Lexis, Google Scholar)
