Call me foolish, call me irresponsible, call me “nerdy.” I’ve been called all of these, and more. But I like controversy. What I don’t care for is guidance that isn’t entirely clear. This is the case with some “breaking news” that was recently shared with me.
A week or so ago, state housing agency published in its electronic newsletter an opinion from a local HUD office that the provision in Paragraph 5-6L that states “social security….paid to by court order to a former spouse are not income for the person paying them, but is income for the person receiving them…” does not apply to back alimony and child support. I was not alone in believing this was what HUD meant since this is exactly the kind of thing a court would order.
According to this HUD office, the provision applies to lost assets.
Fine. But Social Security isn’t an asset in HUD terms. Benefits are received in monthly (periodic) payments, and this makes those payments income. The only time it is an asset is for delayed/deferred lump sum payments.
Part of the problem is that this particular provision was an add-on to something that came into the handbook earlier. Problems can ensue when these “oh, and by the way” types of additions are thrown into the handbook.
With the advent of EIV and HUD’s laudable focus on ensuring that “the right assistance goes to the right people,” the importance of clear guidance that defies more than one interpretation has never been greater. Enough with the “notices” already. We’re well past due for a Handbook change. Making certain that HUD Handbooks are routinely updated so that there is a one-stop resource–with notices filling the occasional gaps–will help both the industry and the families and seniors we strive to serve in affordable housing.