December 16, 2005
Companion Pets
Pets are the second "P" in the list of association problems (Parking, Pets and People). Recently, "companion pets" have been in the news as people who have legitimate needs and people who just want to skirt rules have challenged association "No Pet" rules. Richard Ekimoto, in his Hawaii Condo Law blog, began the discussion of this issue, and we've picked it up with some additional research. Following is a listing of articles and cases regarding "companion pets":
Hawaii Condo Law Blog:
- What is a comfort animal?
- Comfort animals, Part II
Housing Discrimination and Companion Animals
Auburn Woods I Homeowners Ass'n v. Fair Employment and Housing Com'n
Housing Authority of the City of New London v. Tarrant
In re Kenna Homes Cooperative Corporation
Janush v. Charities Housing Development Corp
Majors v. Housing Authority of the County of DeKalb Georgia
Nason v. Stone Hill Realty Association
Whittier Terrace Associates v. Hampshire
Right To Emotional Support Animals In "No Pet" Housing
Joyce Grad v. Royalwood Cooperative Apartments and Schostak Brothers & Co.
One cooperative-two cases:
From the Michigan Bar Animal Law Newsletter -
"In the Winter 2005 issue, we reported on the case of Michigan Dep’t of Civil Rights ex rel Emmick v Royalwood Cooperative Apartments, Inc, Mich Dep’t Civil Rights No. 268485 (2004). In Emmick, the Michigan Department of Civil Rights obtained an award in favor of a co-op owner in a dispute over her companion animal. Th e defendant appealed to Oakland Circuit Court, where Judge Fred Mester confi rmed the award of $45,000 in damages but reduced the attorney’s fees to $38,730. The defendant filed a claim of appeal to the Michigan Court of Appeals, but it was dismissed for procedural reasons. Royalwood then filed a delayed application for leave to appeal. At the same time however, it moved for reconsideration of Judge Mester’s ruling. At press time, the motion for reconsideration had not been decided. In a very similar case against the same defendant, United States v Royalwood Cooperative Apartments,(ED Mich, docket no. 2:03-cf-73034-ADT), another former Royalwood owner prevailed in a jury trial in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Joyce Grad asked for a waiver of the co-op’s “no pets” policy so she could get a dog, to help alleviate the severe depression she suffered as a result of bipolar disorder. She provided letters from a psychologist and a psychiatrist, but the co-op board denied her request. Grad moved to a more expensive apartment. At the suggestion of the Michigan Protection & Advocacy Service, she filed a complaint under the Fair Housing Act, alleging that the co-op failed to make a “reasonable accommodation” of her disability. The complaint also named the property management company, Schostak Brothers and Company, and the property manager, Richard Cail. The defendants moved the case to federal district court. In order for the plaintiff in a disability discrimination case to prevail, she must establish a “handicap” or “disability,” defined as a physical or mental impairment that “substantially limits” a “major life activity.” 42 USC § 3602 (h)(1). Grad argued that she was disabled because her depression interfered with her ability to sleep and work, both of which had been defined as “major life activities.”(1) After a six-day trial before Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, the jury found in favor of the plaintiff and awarded her $14,209 in actual damages and $300,000 in punitive damages. Judith E. Levy, of the United States Attorney’s office in Detroit, represented the plaintiff . After the verdict, she moved for a permanent injunction that would require Royalwood to modify its rules to accommodate requests for service or “emotional support” animals; to send the co-op board and the property manager to a training program on housing and disability laws; and to permit Grad to visit other residents at Royalwood with her dog. Grad also requested attorney fees in a separate motion. The post-trial motions are scheduled for hearing in June. After judgment is entered, Royalwood is expected to appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
(1)See, e.g., Pack v Kmart Corp, 166 F3d 1300(CA 10, 1999) (sleep); Miller v Wells Dairy, Inc 252 FSupp2d 799 (ND Iowa, 2003)(work) (construing Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 USC 12102(1)(A)).
We'll post more as it arrives.
Posted by joewest at 1:37 PM
August 15, 2005
Not On Our Doorpost: Chicago Condo Bans Mezuzahs
From the web site of Levenfeld, Pearlstein (Chicago):
.....examples suggest the important ritual and symbolic role played by the mezuzah, an object containing a scroll with words from the Torah which Jews are man-dated to place on the out-side doorpost of their homes and on interior locations. It’s a popularly observed ritual among Jews.
But if the president and board members of the Shore-line Towers Condominium Association at 6301 North Sheridan Road in Chicago have their way, no Jewish residents there will be permitted to affix a mezuzah to their apartment doorposts. Jewish condo residents, upset at being prohibited from observing a fundamental Jewish practice, have been protesting that ban for over a year. They have involved local Jewish religious and legal groups and complained to city and state bodies. Last month there was an emotional confrontation over the issue at a shiva in the building; both sides have retained legal counsel. Howard S. Dakoff, a lawyer involved in the case, has called the condo board’s actions “tantamount to anti-Semitism.”
Yet the condo board and its president — while declining to explain its actions— remains determined to forbid the mezuzah from the hallways of the building.
Posted by joewest at 2:24 PM
July 12, 2005
ACLU v. Galaxy condo in free speech suit (New Jersey)
The American Civil Liberties Union has filed a lawsuit against the Galaxy Towers condominium association and its president, Martha Norget, saying the organization was stifling the free speech of building residents.
The case, which is being handled by Frank Askin, an attorney and professor at Rutgers Law School in Newark, is currently proceeding with discovery and is scheduled to go to trial in November.
"It has to do with whether or not the state Constitution applies to private communities such as the Galaxy," Askin said.
"Owners want the right to put fliers under apartment doors," Askin said. "The association does it whenever they want, but owners aren't allowed."
They also want an equal voice on the condo's in-house cable station, Time Warner Access Channel 26, and publication, the Galaxy Newsletter.
Stanley Maron, 71, a unit owner at the Galaxy for 11 years, is so upset he's decided to relocate to Massachusetts next month. "My biggest reason for leaving is the stress of such a restrictive environment," he said.
Michael DeLuca, president of the Concerned Unit Owners Group, said the board of directors would not allow their opponents to campaign inside the building before the March election.
"They wouldn't let us put up posters in the complex, so we rented trucks to put posters on across the street," he said.
"We were told (by the election committee) we couldn't wear buttons or hats with the candidates' names," said Lynn Miles, an owner at the Galaxy for about a year and a half. "They came out with these rules about a week before the election and we didn't want our candidates disqualified, so we followed."
"It was never written down; it was all verbal," she said.
Joel Price, vice president of the condominium association, refused to comment. "The case is in the discovery stage and our legal team has advised us not to discuss it." (From The Jersey Journal, July 11, 2005)
Posted by joewest at 9:39 AM