dealing with issues of
between neighbors
In a typical residential setting, the costs of these dis- putes, and any resulting litigation, would be borne solely by the individual homeowners. However, in a common interest development, these disputes can evolve into claims against the Homeowners Associa- tion, individual board members, and property man- agement companies. Homeowners Associations and Community Managers may be more likely to find themselves wrapped up in these neighbor disputes because homeowners may allege they have failed to satisfy their obligations under federal regulations and other statutes protecting homeowners from discrimi- nation based on race, color, religion, sex, familial sta- tus, national origin or disability.
U
Te U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Develop- ment (“HUD”) has issued a rule interpreting the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601-3619, (“FHA”) to make a landlord, community management company, or Homeowners Association directly liable for hous- ing discrimination. (See, 24 C.F.R. 100.7) In addition
nresolved disputes amongst neighbors can lead to lengthy and costly litigation. Tis is especially true when dealing with claims of harassment or discrimination.
to liability based on a board member or Community Manager’s own discriminatory conduct, a Homeown- ers Association may be “directly liable for . . . [f]ailing to take prompt action to correct and end a discrimina- tory housing practice by a third-party, where the per- son knew or should have known of the discriminatory conduct and had the power to correct it.” (24 C.F.R. § 100.7 (iii).)
Tese regulated discriminatory housing practices also go beyond a sale and/or acquisition of real estate. Un- der HUD rules, claims may also be brought for quid pro quo harassment and hostile environment harass- ment which effects the “use or enjoyment of a dwelling . . . or the provision or enjoyment of services or facili- ties in connection therewith.” (24 C.F.R. 100.600 (a) (1), (2).) Plainly stated, pervasive harassment and/or discrimination that results in a homeowner’s inability to use and enjoy their homes, common area, and other association facilities can result in FHA violations.
Potential liability is also limited to “the extent of the person's control or any other legal responsibility the person may have with respect to the conduct of such third-party.” (24 C.F.R. § 100.7 (iii).) Courts have held that “[l]iability attaches because a party has ‘an arsenal of incentives and sanctions ... that can be applied to af- fect conduct’ but fails to use them.” (Wetzel v. Glen St. Andrew Living Cmty., LLC (7th Cir. 2018) 901 F.3d 856, 865.)
15
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32
