The record also indicates that Brelena began her employment at American Multi Cinema, Inc. on March 25, 2012, almost a month after she moved out. Therefore, because Brelena was no longer living in the household as of March 25, 2012 when she began receiving an income, Brenda was under no obligation to report Brelena's income from American Multi Cinema, Inc. Rodriguez v. Chicago Housing Authority, 2015 IL App (1st) 142458, ¶ 18 ("an individual ceases to be a member of the household of a Voucher Program participant when that individual ceases to reside in the subsidized unit without expectation of return."). While the hearing officer acknowledged that Brelena had moved out of the household prior to earning income, which in effect relieved Brenda of her duty to report that information to the HACC, the hearing officer still found that the HACC had proven both violations by a preponderance of the evidence.
The record also indicates that Brelena began her employment at American Multi Cinema, Inc., on March 25, 2012, almost a month after she moved out. Therefore, because Brelena was no longer living in the household as of March 25, 2012 when she began receiving an income, Brenda was under no obligation to report Brelena's income from American Multi Cinema, Inc. Rodriguez v. Chicago Housing Authority, 2015 IL App (1st) 142458, ¶ 18 ("an individual ceases to be a member of the household of a Voucher Program participant when that individual ceases to reside in the subsidized unit without expectation of return"). While the hearing officer acknowledged that Brelena had moved out of the household prior to earning income, which in effect relieved Brenda of her duty to report that information to the HACC, the hearing officer still found that the HACC had proven both violations by a preponderance of the evidence.
"The standard of review in either instance are essentially the same." Rodriguez v. Chicago Housing Authority, 2015 IL App (1st) 142458, ¶ 13. We review the agency's decision and the record of administrative proceedings, not the circuit court's decision.
When the fact finder determines the legal effect of a given set of facts, it is a mixed question of law and fact and we review the decision for clear error. Rodriguez v. Chicago Housing Authority , 2015 IL App (1st) 142458, ¶ 15, 394 Ill.Dec. 289, 35 N.E.3d 1258. "An administrative agency's finding is clearly erroneous where, after reviewing the entire record, we are left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made." Id.
When the fact finder determines the legal effect of a given set of facts, it is a mixed question of law and fact and we review the decision for clear error. Rodriguez v. Chicago Housing Authority, 2015 IL App (1st) 142458, ¶ 15. "An administrative agency's finding is clearly erroneous where, after reviewing the entire record, we are left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made." Id.
Accordingly, we review the administrative agency's decision, not the circuit court's decision. Id. (holding that review of a common law writ is treated as "any other appeal that comes to us on administrative review"); Rodriguez v. Chicago Housing Authority, 2015 IL App (1st) 142458, ¶ 13. Therefore, petitioner's claims of error attributable to the circuit court, including that it employed an improper standard of review, are misplaced on appeal, as we review the decision of the agency and not that of the circuit court.
The CHA responds that plaintiff's rent was properly raised to the $435 level on July 1, 2013 because on that date, 24 months after plaintiff's EID began, both 12-month periods of eligibility were completely used and EID was terminated. ¶ 13 The CHA is a municipal corporation operating under the provisions of the Housing Authorities Act (310 ILCS 10/1 et seq. (West 2012)), which did not adopt the Administrative Review Law (735 ILCS 5/3-101 et seq. (West 2012)). As a result, the proper vehicle to seek a judicial review of the CHA's final administrative decision in this case was by means of a common law writ of certiorari. Rodriguez v. Chicago Housing Authority, 2015 IL App (1st) 142458, ¶ 12. However, an appeal from the decision rendered in such a proceeding is treated as any other appeal for administrative review, and accordingly, we review the decision of the administrative agency, and not the determination of the circuit court.