Brianna Frye v. Michigan State Housing Development Authority
Key claim: The Michigan Court of Appeals reversed a circuit court’s dismissal and remanded a case in which the state housing agency ended a woman’s federal rent voucher without a hearing, holding the court had jurisdiction under the Administrative Procedures Act.
Abstract
Michigan Court of Appeals opinion decided 2026-09-09. If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
BRIANNA FRYE, UNPUBLISHED July 30, 2026 Plaintiff-Appellant, 9:29 AM APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION September 9, 2026 10:05 AM
V No. 371937 Ingham Circuit Court MICHIGAN STATE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT LC No. 23-000740-AA AUTHORITY,
Defendant-Appellee.
Before: M. J. KELLY, P.J., and PATEL and KOROBKIN, JJ.
PATEL, J.
Defendant, Michigan State Housing Development Authority (MSHDA), terminated
plaintiff, Brianna Frye, from the federal Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program without an opportunity for a hearing. Frye appeals by leave granted1 the circuit court’s order dismissing her claim of appeal for lack of jurisdiction under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), MCL 24.201 et seq. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
MSHDA is Michigan’s public housing agency (PHA) that accepts and administers federal
funding from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to
1 This Court initially denied Frye’s delayed application for leave to appeal. Frye v Mich State Housing Dev Auth, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals entered March 6, 2025 (Docket No. 371937). Frye applied for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, which remanded this case to this Court for consideration as on leave granted. Frye v Mich State Housing Dev Auth, ___ Mich ___; 24 NW3d 799, 799 (2025).
-1-
subsidize rent for individuals with low income. 42 USC 1437f(o); 24 CFR 982.1(a); MCL 125.1422©. Community Management Associates, Inc. (CMA), a private corporation, manages the voucher program on MSHDA’s behalf. A voucher participant must meet several obligations to receive and maintain a voucher. See 24 CFR 982.551. If the participant fails to meet program requirements and obligations, MSHDA can terminate the voucher. See 24 CFR 982.552.
In July 2015, Frye applied for subsidized housing at Hamilton Crossing in Ypsilanti and
was placed on a waiting list. In February 2019, Frye was approved for a rental unit at Hamilton Crossing and moved into the unit with her minor son. Frye’s rental subsidy was provided through HUD’s Project-Based Voucher (PBV) program, which is a component of the HCV program, and was attached to her specific unit at Hamilton Crossing, which is managed by KMG Prestige.2
In the summer of 2022, Hamilton Crossing conducted an inspection of Frye’s unit. Frye’s
brother and cousin were present during the inspection but Frye was absent. Frye maintains that she was not present at the time of the inspection because, between July and September 2022, she was caring for her sick grandmother at her grandmother’s home in Macomb County. During that time, Frye “occasionally” stayed overnight at her grandmother’s home and left her minor son under the care of her brother at the Hamilton Crossing rental unit. Frye contends that she “was never absent from the unit for more than a few days at a time.” She further asserts that her brother had his own home in Canton and did not live in her rental unit. Frye maintains that her cousin visited Michigan for one week in July 2022 and, during that week, he visited her rental unit “a few times during the day.”
In August 2022, Frye requested an HCV voucher so that she could move from Hamilton
Crossing. On August 19, 2022, Kim Tripp, a CMA employee, e-mailed Frye requesting her phone number. On August 20, 2022, Frye responded to Tripp’s e-mail and Tripp called Frye to explain “the process for getting a voucher.” On August 24, 2022, Jamie Jackson, the PBV manager for CMA, sent an e-mail to KMG Prestige stating that Frye “has requested to move with HCV assistance,” and inquired whether Frye was “in Good Standing with management.” On August 25, 2022, La Tasha Dexter, a Hamilton Crossings community manager with KMG Prestige, replied:
It has been reported to our office Ms. Frye has vacated the unit and allowed her
brother and cousin to live in the unit. I spoke to Ms. Frye and she stated she had
been out of town and they were looking after the place. After performing an
inspection of the unit, there is no evidence that Ms. Frye is still residing in the unit
all [sic]. We have consulted legal on the next steps.
Tripp was copied on Dexter’s e-mail. Jackson replied that Tripp would “be following up with [Frye] as well.” According to Frye, on September 1, 2022, she “notified Hamilton Crossing in writing that she wanted to move, but she verbally rescinded this notice soon thereafter.”
2 An HCV is tenant-based and can be transferred to other location. A PBV is unit-based and tied to a specific building or property.
-2-
In September 2022, MSHDA purportedly sent Frye a notice that it was terminating her participation in the HCV program. The notice was dated September 13, 2022, and was backdated to take effect on August 31, 2022. The notice stated that Frye’s participation in the program was being terminated because she abandoned or vacated the unit without notice. The notice elaborated, “Tenant moved from a Project Base Unit before they were approved.” The second page of the notice describes the reason for termination as “Tenant move [sic] from unit.” The notice advised that Frye was entitled to request an informal hearing, and that the request “must be received by” October 3, 2022, and “[a] request received after this date will not receive a hearing.” A hearing request form was included on the third page. The form stated that Frye had the right to legal representation at the hearing, along with the opportunity to present witnesses, refute MSHDA’s evidence, and examine and be provided with pertinent documents. CMA, in Big Rapids, was listed as the entity to contact with questions, and to whom to send the request form. However, Frye maintains that she did not receive the termination notice.
On October 5, 2022, Yakisha Dorsey, a Hamilton Crossings community manager with
KMG Prestige, sent an e-mail to Tripp, stating that Frye “asked me to contact you to let you know that she is in good standing with Hamilton Crossing and can continue to reside in her unit.” Frye was copied on Dorsey’s e-mail. According to Frye, on October 6, 2022, she received an annual reexamination packet from CMA, which she returned before the October 20, 2022 deadline. On November 1, 2022, Frye received a letter from Hamilton Crossing stating that she needed to complete the annual recertification interview for the tax credit program. On January 1, 2023, Frye received a second reminder notice for this recertification interview. The notice stated that her annual recertification was due on February 1, 2023. Frye contends that she signed a new lease agreement and recertification paperwork “[s]ometime between January 1, 2023 and January 10, 2023.”
On January 20, 2023, Hamilton Crossing sent Frye a demand for possession on the basis
of an alleged failure to pay $217 in rent. According to Frye, when she went to Hamilton Crossing’s office to inquire about the d
Why this matters
For low-income Michigan tenants relying on federal Housing Choice Vouchers, this ruling means a state agency cannot end rental assistance without providing a hearing and then evade court review on jurisdictional grounds. By anchoring MSHDA voucher terminations in the Administrative Procedures Act, the decision gives voucher holders a clearer path to challenge the loss of a benefit that typically covers a majority of their rent.