The following cases involve emotinal support and service animals in the context of land use law and disability:
Emotional Support & Service Animals
Furbee v. Wilson, No. 19A-PL-1756, 2020 Ind. App. LEXIS 122 (Ct. App. Mar. 30, 2020).
Tags
- FHA
- Reasonable Accommodation
- Emotional-Support Animal
Story
Tenant, Shelley Linder, had an apartment lease with Furbee Properties, Landlord, which restricted the tenant from allowing dogs, cats, or other animals or pets on the premises, the punishment of which could be a fine and eviction. Shortly after signing the lease, the Shelley asked the landlord if she could have an emotional-support animal and provided the landlord with a doctor’s letter supporting the use of an emotional-support animal. The landlord sent a letter to Shelley that additional information beyond the doctor’s letter was needed for the landlord to make a determination as to whether the accommodation would be allowed. The additional information requested by the landlord included: sessions completed with the doctor and the Shelley’s disability (without including specific details). Since Shelley did not provide the requested additional information, the landlord took no action on the tenants request for an emotional-support animal. Shelley brought a cat into her apartment, was charged a fine, and after not removing the cat in the time frame set by the landlord, she was evicted. The landlord argued that it was not given enough information to meaningfully review the tenant’s request for an accommodation and thus can’t be found to have refused the request. Shelley argued she did not respond because the landlord’s requests went beyond what they were permitted to ask.
Legal Claims
The tenant filed a complaint with the Indiana Civil Rights Commission who then filed a complaint against the landlord arguing a violation of the FHA. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. The landlord appealed the trial court ruling, and the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court ruling entering summary judgment in favor of the landlord.
Holding/Reasoning
The Court held that without information about the tenant’s disability and disability related need for the animal, the landlord could not meaningfully review tenant’s request for an emotional-support animal. The Fair Housing Act does not demand that housing providers immediately grant all requests for accommodation, they have the ability to conduct a meaningful review before making a final decision.
Boffoli v. Swalko, No. 3:16-cv-01463-YY, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55981 (D. Or. Jan. 22, 2018).
Tags
- FHA
- Reasonable Accomodation
- Companion Pet
Story
Plaintiff, tenant, brought suit against the defendant, her former landlord. According to the lease agreement signed by the tenant, no pets were allowed on the premises. However, the tenant sent a letter to the landlord requesting that her son be allowed to have a companion pet which would be a small to medium dog, non-vicious breed of dog. Her son had various needs in which he struggled with social play with other children and doesn’t get enough exercise and she believed her sons struggles would be helped with the presence of a dog. The landlord issued a termination notice to the tenant and proposed that she pay a pet deposit for the dog. The landlord then proposed a revised rental contract to increase the rent to allow the tenant to pay the deposit in increments rather than up front. The tenant remained on the premises and continued to pay the rent specified in the original lease agreement with no rent increase and the landlord never demanded any additional money, nor was Anastasia or the dog prevent from accessing the premises.
Legal Claims
The tenant claimed that the defendant violated the Federal Fair Housing Act in that the landlord discriminated against her and her son because of her son’s disability refusing to make reasonable accommodations in the rental rules when such accommodation was necessary to afford her son with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the dwelling.
Holding/Reasoning
In order to prevail on a claim under the FHA, Anastasia had to prove that she or her son were handicapped within the meaning of the statute, that the Mark, the landlord, knew or should reasonably be expected to know of the handicap, accommodation of the handicap may be necessary to afford that person an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the dwelling, the accommodation is reasonable, and the landlord refused to make the requested accommodations. In this case, the landlord claimed he did not refuse a reasonable accommodation because neither Anastasia, nor her son, was ever deprived of the emotional support/companion animal. The court here found that the landlord’s motion for summary judgement was denied since there was an issue of material fact.