Condominiums

The following cases involve condominiums in the context of land use law and disability:

Bhogaita v. Altamonte Heights Condominium Ass’n, Inc., 765 F.3d 1277 (11th Cir. 2014)

Tags

Condominium
ADA
Service Animals
Private Land Regulation
HUD
Reasonable Accommodation

Story

Ajit Bhogita, a U.S. Air Force veteran, had post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). To cope with the immense stress, he obtained an emotion support dog. However, the condominium unit in which Bhogita lived prohibited dogs weighing more than twenty-five pounds. His dog weighed more than the allowed limit, so the Association asked him to remove the dog. Bhogita’s psychiatrist wrote the Association to show he needed the dog to fully enjoy and use his unit. However, the Association asked Bhogita for additional information concerning his disability and any training his dog received. Bhogita did not respond, but he filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and Florida Commission on Human Relations.

Legal Claims

Bhogita claimed the Association failed to provide a reasonable accommodation in violation of the FHA.

Holding/Reasoning

First, the court held the association constructively denied resident’s requested accommodation as a matter of law. Even though Bhogita did not respond to some of the Association’s requests for information, he provided other evidence to show the nature and existence of his PTSD.

Second, Bhogita provided enough evidence to support a jury’s finding that he had a disability. His doctor wrote several letters to the Association and provided adequate detail to establish his disability under the FHA.

Third, Bhogita provided enough evidence to show how having the dog would affirmatively enhance his quality of life and ameliorate the effects of his disability. Again, his doctor’s letters provided enough information to support that finding.

Other issues arose during litigation, but ultimately Bhogita prevailed on his FHA claims. Furthermore, he received attorney fees and costs.

Astralis Condominium Ass’n v. Secretary, U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development, 620 F.3d 62 (1st Cir. 2010)

Tags

Condominum
FHA
Private Land Regulation
Parking
HUD
Handicap
Reasonable Accommodation

Story

Carlos García-Guillén and Sonia Vélez-Avilés (the complainants) lived in the Astralis condominium complex (the complex) in Carolina, Puerto Rico. Mr. García-Guillén suffered from knee and leg pain and required a walker or a cane to move around. Ms. Vélez-Avilés had osteoarthritis of the knees, distal neuropathy, and a prolapsed lumbar disc. She received medical treatment for each.

The complex had several unallocated parking spaces, including handicapped spaces. The unallocated spaces, per the complex’s documents and agreements, were common elements to be used by residents and visitors on a first-come, first-served basis.

The complainants asked Astralis to grant them the exclusive use of the two handicapped parking spaces closest to their unit. The complex and complainants could not reach an agreement that allowed the complainants the exclusive use they desired. They contacted the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), who filed an FHA action against the complex.

Legal Claims

An ALJ presided over a hearing to determine whether the complex violated the FHA by refusing to grant a reasonable accommodation. The ALJ ultimately ruled for the complainants, so the complex appealed the agency’s decision.

Holding/Reasoning

On review, an agency decision is only set aside if it is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” This is a familiar standard in FHA and ADA administrative claims. Based on that standard, the court found the following:

The complainants were handicapped, within meaning of FHA;

the complex knew, or reasonably should have known, of the complainants handicaps;

the complainants requested a reasonable accommodation to use the unassigned handicap spaces closest to their unit, and the accommodation was necessary to allow them equal opportunity to use and enjoy their unit;

the complex’s delay in deciding to grant the complainants an accommodation amounted to refusing their request for an accommodation; and

the complex could not bypass the FHA’s requirements by insisting their policy complied with Puerto Rico condominium law. Rather, the FHA controlled this issue.

Simovits v. Chanticleer Condominium Ass’n, 933 F.Supp. 1394 (N.D. Ill. 1996)

Tags

Condominum
FHA
Private Land Regulation
Familial status
Housing for older persons

Story
The Simovits’s owned a condominium in the Chanticleer Condominium Complex (“Chanticleer”), an eighty-four unit housing facility. Canticleer had a restrictive covenant barring an owner from selling a unit to anyone with children under the age of eighteen. While many of its residents were over the age of fifty-five, Chanticleer did not require its residents to exceed fifty-five years of age and a number of its residents were under fifty-five. Mr. Simovitis attempted to sell his condo on the market, but only obtained offers from prospective buyers who had children. As a result, he lowered the asking price several times. After lowering the sale price, a young couple without children offered to buy the condo, but requested Chanticleer waive the “no children under eighteen” covenant. Chanticleer agreed to waive it and the Simovitis’s sold the condo.

Legal Claims
The Simovits’s brought FHA claims for economic and emotional injuries caused by the Chanticleer Condominium Association’s covenant prohibiting residency by children under the age of eighteen. The Simovitis’s claimed Chanticleer’s covenant discriminated based on familial status. They claimed losses from the diminishing value of their condo and that the covenant caused them to take on additional mortgage obligations. Further, Mr. Simovitis claimed emotional damages due to the stress of not being able to sell their condo.

Holding/Reasoning
– First, the Simovitis’s had standing under the FHA. The court reiterated that the sole requirement for standing under the FHA is the Article III “minima of injury in fact.” This only requires a plaintiff to allege a “distinct and palpable” injury that is “fairly traceable” to a defendant’s discriminatory conduct. The Simovitis’s lost opportunities to sell the condo and financial strain due to their additional mortgage payments satisfied the injury requirement. Additionally, the Simovitis’s complaint alleged the covenant was the reason earlier prospective buyers did not purchase the condo and the cause of Mr. Simovitis’s emotional distress.
– Next, the court held Chanticleer discriminated based on familial status. The FHA grants an exception for “housing for older persons,” as defined by the Housing for Older Persons Act of 1995. The statute requires, among other things, that eighty percent of the community’s occupied units be occupied by at least one person over the age of fifty-five. While Chanticleer conducted a shoddy survey to show it met the eighty percent threshold, its survey was based on estimates and not properly documented. Nor did the condo association did not publish or adhere to policies and procedures that show an intent to provide housing for persons fifty-five and older. Finally, Chanticleer did not abide by the HUD regulations that establish the ways in which a housing association can establish its status under the Housing for Older Persons Act.