CC&R vs FFHA

In our CC&R's no businesses are permitted to operate from a residence. Our Property Management Company sent a cease and desist letter to a property that is actually a small group home with no more than 3 disabled residents and one caretaker. I'm of the opinion that the management company should have done some due diligence before the letter was sent and could be a violation of the Federal Act. Your thoughts or experience is appreciated.

I agree with Melissa ... It is not really being used as a business and instead could potentially violate the CCR's if they note that homes can only be used as Single Famility Homes. However, if your CCR's do not note that only Single Famility homes is allowed this will be a battle the HOA most likely will loose in a Court battle. Was the Board aware of the letter being sent and did they perform due diligence prior to sending???

Good work by TimB4.

I do not buy the possible "single family" use argument. I think it is fraught with land mines. Like "define family." Also, if there is then some definition of family used, this definition might invite a different FFHA complaint: Discrimination on the basis of familial status.

Louisa, is renting of homes prohibited?

Have there actually been any problems with this home, other than its being a group home?

Otherwise, I agree with TimB4's suggestions.

Here's a 2002 Florida state appeals court decision ruling in favor of the group home residents et al., based in Florida law and the federal Fair Housing Act: http://www.ccfj.net/courtdecFLCommHome.html

Excerpts:
~~~
The restrictive covenants of the subdivision at issue provide:
1. Each lot shall be used expressly and exclusively for single-family, private residence purposes.
2. No business activity shall be conducted or carried on in connection with the residential usage of any lot or parcel.
...

[The court concludes] "that the Holleys' action to enforce the deed restriction is impermissibly discriminatory. Their action was premised on the fact that the residence was to be a group home for developmentally delayed adults. Whether the Holleys' action was motivated by a desire to prevent these disabled persons from living in the neighborhood or simply by their objection to any group home is not clear from the record. Therefore, it was error to decide the absence of intentional discrimination by summary judgment. However, the record does show that by enforcing the restriction, incidental discrimination results since the residence is made unavailable for the handicapped. See Rhodes v. Palmetto Pathway Homes, Inc., 400 S.E. 2d 484 (S.C. 1991). Finally, public policy as stated in section 419.001(2) and in section 393.062, Florida Statutes (2000), *fn2 supports the premise that the group home is the functional equivalent of a single-family residential unit and as such does not pose any threat to the purpose justifying the deed restrictions at issue. Thus, to refuse to waive these restrictions is to refuse to offer a reasonable accommodation, which also amounts to discrimination as defined by statute. See Advocacy Ctr., 192 F. Supp. 2d 1344.
~~~

Thanks to poster RW1 for providing the citation above in the 2007 thread http://www.hoatalk.com/Forum/tabid/55/view/topic/postid/27956/Default.aspx

Here is what may be the seminal federal ruling on the subject,from 1994: Martin v. Constance, http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/843/1321/2594110/ . Once again, a neighborhood sought to enforce a restrictive covenant that would preclude use of a home by the state for a group of disabled adults. The neighborhood lost.

You should not resign.

Instead, you should call a meeting with the Board, the MC rep and reps boss.
Explain the situation along with the potential ramifications of such action.
Then ask the MC point blank if they are aware of the fair housing act and, if they are, why they chose to potentially violate it in the name of the Association. Basically, read them the riot act.

If you resign, nothing will likely change and you will miss an opportunity to educate.

The FHA rules was amended last year under the Obama Regime that allows group homes, transitional housing et al whatever you want to call them, now has a RIGHT
to operate in deed restricted common interest communities.
I know because we have a prison step-down unit in the the adjacent HOA to mine. This "group home" is for repeat offenders for burglary, robbery etc. another group home in other adjacent community houses sex offenders..

THANK YOU FHA PHHHHHLLLLLLLLLLBTTTTTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sounds like fake news to me. To be expected, I suppose, by someone casually using the word "regime" when talking about a U.S. President.

LetA ... Your link makes the statement:

"Restrictions are still valid for group homes whose occupants are active drug users or felons."

Therefore, restrictions against those type homes are still in place and valid against active drug users or felons. Potentially the way around this issue is to have a VERY good definition in the CCR's regarding "Single Family Homes".

Single family home:

ONE kitchen

ONE unit

NO interior 'lock out' partitions

NO 'sub leasing' of efficiency rooms

NO 'room rentals'

A group home serving multiple persons with a common interest with ONE kitchen meets the specs for single family

If not for profit, it would NOT be a business per se