The opinion of the court was delivered by: CHARLES R. WEINER
Plaintiff Rosalina Rodriguez brought suit challenging a final determination of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development denying her application for acceptance into the agency's Mortgage Assistance Program (MAP). Presently before the court are the parties' cross motions for summary judgment. For the reasons which follow, both motions will be denied and the cause remanded to the agency for further proceedings.
The following facts, as recited by the defendant, are not disputed.
1. On or about July 16, 1990, plaintiff purchased a house located at 4109 N. 5th Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, with a loan in the amount of $ 26,676, secured by an FHA insured mortgage and a Note in favor of American Residential Mortgage Corporation. (Administrative Record (A.R.) pp. 1-4). She lives there with her three sons and her boyfriend, Adrian Fields. The family is eligible for food stamps even when both adults are working.
2. The monthly mortgage payment for principal and interest, which is set forth in the terms of the Note, is $ 254.05 to be paid on the first day of each month beginning September 1990. (A.R. pp. 1-6) Additionally, plaintiff was obligated under paragraph 2 of the mortgage document to pay other monthly charges which pertained, including installments of any taxes, premiums for insurance, and late charges, if applicable. Plaintiff's total monthly payment amounted to $ 298.75. (A.R. p. 1).
3. The last mortgage payment received by the mortgagee, American Residential Mortgage Corporation, was in November, 1991. (A.R. p. 28).
4. The date of default on the mortgage is January 1, 1992. (A.R. p. 35).
5. By letter dated February 13, 1992, American Residential Mortgage Corporation notified plaintiff that the mortgage was in serious default. Plaintiff had not paid the mortgage payments for the months of December 1991, January 1992 and February 1992. (A.R. p. 12). Plaintiff was advised that she would be given an opportunity to request assistance from HUD if she qualified.
6. A second letter was sent on April 9, 1992 by American Residential Mortgage Corporation advising plaintiff that the mortgagee had determined that plaintiff did not qualify for assistance from HUD. However, the plaintiff was advised that she had the right to contact HUD directly to request assistance. (A.R. pp. 15-16).
7. By letter dated April 24, 1991, HUD acknowledged receipt of plaintiff's request for consideration for mortgage relief and instructed the plaintiff as to the types of documentation and information needed by HUD to make a determination as to whether the plaintiff qualified for the Assignment Program. (A.R. 21).
8. By letter dated June 16, 1992, HUD advised the plaintiff that the information provided was insufficient to make a determination as to whether the plaintiff qualified for the Assignment Program. However, plaintiff was advised that she had an opportunity to submit additional documentation, as well as an opportunity to request a face-to-face conference with a HUD representative if she so chose. (A.R. pp. 35-39).
9. Plaintiff requested and was granted a face-to-face conference which was held on July 13, 1992. (A.R. p. 41).
10. Following the conference, plaintiff was given five (5) additional days to submit relevant information, including federal tax returns, copies of paystubs, statements from Mr. Field's employer, E.Z. Park, explaining the reason he was laid off from his job in January 1991 and copies of utility and telephone bills. (A.R. p. 41).
11. According to plaintiff's Federal Income Tax Return, plaintiff's wages for the year 1990 were $ 12,327. (A.R. p. 42).
12. According to plaintiff's 1991 W-2 form, plaintiff earned $ 13,037.25 in gross wages for ...