R.M. v. Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that mortgagor’s claim that he could now expect to earn as an attorney between $280,000 and $300,000 following his recovery from an illness, which was based on a letter from a vocational expert, was speculative
• finding no error where the hearing examiner affirmed HEMAP denial because there was no evidence of when speculative future income would be realized
• hearing examiner reasonably concluded homeowner’s future income was speculative where there was no evidence as to when he expected to earn it, nor an explanation of why he had been previously unable to do so

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).