Case Review: sue HOA for discrimination

This fair housing dispute started around 2015. The main issues were (1) whether a HOA's various signage and rules for the pool, tennis courts and clubhouse discriminated against kids and so per long-established fair housing case law, also discriminated unlawfully on the basis of familial status; and (2) whether the HOA's denial of a fence that a family wanted to keep its kids away from a river was also discrimination and/or retaliation that is unlawful under the Fair Housing Act.

The links AdamL1 provided are to a federal district court magistrate judge's rulings in February, 2020. These were rulings strictly on motions. Only motion hearings had occurred. No trial had occurred. The rulings on the motions "whittle down" the issues left to resolve.

For all I know, a settlement has occurred. Seeing if HUD has a Conciliation Agreement on file at this point might be worthwhile. Or maybe the HOA that was sued here has a little statement about this on its web site, as is often (always?) required.

My take on the district court decision --

-- Any veteran HOATalk member could have predicted the ruling on the motion about the signs and the rules the HOA had in place and how these signs and rules yielded prima facie evidence of discrimination against kids. As has been well-established, this ends up also being (unlawful) discrimination on the basis of familial status. These issues have been discussed many times here, and this is just in the last few years.

-- River Run Homeowners' Association had two-bit attorneys. The HOA's attorneys argued that the Hills were still using the tennis courts and pool, so the signs and rules could not have hurt their family. And more. The case law is long-established on these points. If the HOA's attorneys had any competence, the first thing they would have done was fix these signs and not dispute that the signs were discriminatory. I figure the HOA's attorneys made at least $50,000 fighting the family on this point, and then losing on this point.

-- The Hill family filed their Fair Housing complaint of familial status discrimination in May, 2015. This was the formal complaint. The family likely contacted HUD several months before, setting the wheels in motion. A HUD underling typically assists complainants in "perfecting" a complaint. That's HUD jargon. Do not take "perfecting" literally.

-- Oh my goodness. I know, a tiny minuscule bit, the attorneys for the plaintiffs. (Big deal. Point is I have come to understand that fair housing practitioners are specialized and travel to other states to help clients all the time. It's enough of a specialty that any HOA/COA going up against one of these firms better hire separate counsel that is also specialized, IMO.)

-- A magistrate judge ruled on certain motions. The rulings on the motions whittled down the issues in dispute. I have not heard of any appeal of these rulings.

-- Federal District Court judges assign certain cases to their magistrate judges.

-- This is a federal district court, magistrate judge decision. My understanding was they're not usually published for the world to see. They do not have precedential value. Of course afaic, they can help someone thinking of filing a suit on similar or the same grounds.

-- The family moved? I suppose the inability to fence off the river from my kids might be plenty of reason all by itself for me to want to move. Either way, I think it speaks volumes about how the family was suffering as it fought the HOA.

-- In August, 2020, the plaintiffs asked for a stipulated dismissal, and the judge so ordered this. As interested, see: https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/24848225/Hill_et_al_v_River_Run_Homeowners_Association,_Inc . I expect the plaintiffs negotiated a settlement with the defendants, especially since so much was going in favor of the plaintiffs.

-- Apart from fair housing issues, I think this case shows the sometimes bumbling nature of ACCs. I think being on the ACC is often harder than being on board of directors. I just about got a headache reading about all the back-and-forth among the ACC members. (Read: I stopped reading it and moved onto the other fair housing discussion.)

-- Agreed: The time and energy given over five years is a loss for both sides. But the HOA was the stupid party here, afaic.