Reasonable Accommodation Request Must Show Necessity
Here’s an important case for you to be aware of concerning “reasonable accommodation”. This issue usually comes up in the context of an owner wanting an emotional support animal. This case doesn’t concern animals, but tells us a lot about what “reasonable accommodation” means. Please read this case closely.
Debity v. Vintage Village Homeowners Association, No. 3:22-CV-00017-DCLC-CRW (E.D. Tenn. Sept. 21, 2023)
Federal Law and Legislation: The Court held that homeowners did not show that a wooden privacy fence was necessary to accommodate their disabled son under the federal Fair Housing Act compared to the wrought iron fence approved by the Association.
Vintage Village Homeowners Association (Association) governed a subdivision in Maryville, Tenn. Joshua and Leah Debity (the Debitys) purchased a home in the subdivision in July 2021.
Prior to purchasing the property, the Debitys asked the Association about installing a wooden privacy fence on their lot due to their son's autism, which caused him to wander off. The community's Declaration required that all fences be approved in writing by the Association prior to installation. The Association responded that it preferred a 4-foot wrought iron fence.
The Debitys requested a reasonable accommodation for a 6-foot wooden fence to allow their son the same access to his yard as other children that did not have the uncontrolled urge to wander at any moment from a secure environment because of his special needs. The Association advised that it would consider the request once the Debitys actually purchased the home.
After the purchase closed, the Debitys submitted a request for a 6-foot wooden fence. The Association denied the request but approved a 6-foot wrought iron fence. The Association also offered to defer Association assessments to offset any concern about the cost of a wrought iron fence compared to a wooden fence. The Debitys never installed a fence and sold the property in November 2022.
Prior to selling the property, the Debitys sued the Association for discrimination in violation of the federal Fair Housing Act (FHA). They sought a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief and monetary damages. The court held that, after selling the property, the Debitys were no longer entitled to declaratory or injunctive relief because they faced no ongoing or imminent harm from the Declaration's enforcement.
The FHA prohibits the refusal to permit, at the expense of the disabled person, reasonable modifications of existing premises if such modifications may be necessary to afford the disabled person full enjoyment of the premises as well as the refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules when such accommodations may be necessary to afford such person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. The operative elements of a claim for reasonable accommodation is the reasonableness and necessity of the requested modification or accommodation.
The necessity element requires that the requested accommodation would redress injuries or otherwise permit a disabled resident to receive the same enjoyment from the property as a nondisabled person would receive. The plaintiff must show that, but for the requested accommodation, he or she likely will be denied an equal opportunity to enjoy the housing of his or her choice.
The Association contended that there was no basis for concluding that a 6-foot wooden fence was necessary. The Debitys responded that the wooden fence was necessary for them to have a safe space for their son's outdoor play because it kept him from wandering off and protected him from being exposed if he had an episode and removed his clothing. The Debitys noted that their primary concern was the presence of a deep drainage pond located directly behind their home. Without a fence, they feared their son might dart off to the pond and drown.
The Court found that a fence might be necessary to allow the Debitys' son to receive the same enjoyment from the property as a nondisabled child, but the Debitys did not show how the approved wrought iron fence would not adequately alleviate their concerns. Consideration of various alternatives has always been built into the analysis of necessity. Although the Debitys clearly preferred a wooden fence, the Court found that they failed to show it was necessary.
Accordingly, summary judgment was granted in favor of the Association.
Related Attorneys
