The ADA and FHA decisions handed down in the last few weeks share a common theme: technicalities matter. Sometimes the lack of technical standards increases the time and money spent in litigation, as in the first entry below, but more often technical matters of procedure and expert testimony determine the outcome of a case. The ancient Greek dramatist Aeschylus famously said “wrong must not win by technicalities,” but it is easier to sort out right and wrong when you get to write the play and decide who says and does what. When people don’t agree they go to court, and a commitment to the rule of law is a commitment to deciding disputes based on technicalities instead of fluctuating political and individual notions of what is right and wrong. More
Statute of Limitatinos
Endless liability under the Fair Housing Act — and let’s make it personal
I often remind my clients that when it comes to the Fair Housing Act and Americans with Disabilities Act the adage “ignorance is bliss” does not apply. Last week’s decision from the Southern District of Mississippi, U.S. v. Dawn Properties, Inc. et al 2014 WL 5775324 (S.D. Miss. Nov. 6, 2014) is a reminder that ignorance may turn corporate liability into personal liability for managers or owners, and that time may not be enough to insure safety.
The underlying business deals were common in the real estate development business. An LLC, Ridgeland Construction One LLC, was created to develop an apartment complex. Construction was finished in 2000 and the LLC was merged into a Delaware LLC of the same name. It was then sold to a new group of investors. In 2006 the property was sold and, two years later, the LLC was dissolved. No one involved suspected that there might be FHA accessibility violations although it appears no survey was ever conducted to make sure. More
A statute of repose proposal for FHA and ADA design/build liability
Last week I described how liability for design/build claims under the FHA can last forever. The same problem exists with design/build claims under the ADA, as shown by the decision in Frame v. City of Arlington. There are even surprises with the statute of limitations for barrier removal cases. For example, after a plaintiff encounters an access barrier he can wait as long as he wants before filing suit. In Pickern v. Holiday Quality Foods the Ninth Circuit said that as long as the plaintiff is aware of the discriminatory condition and is deterred from returning to the building the violation of the ADA continues. In Pickern the plaintiff had driven to the store within the limitations period, and although he remained in his car there was some evidence of real deterrence. Nonetheless, the rule stated in Pickern would allow a plaintiff to stew at home for as many years or decades as she chose before filing suit. More
Endless liability for FHA design/build claims is alive and well
The apartment complex is complete, the construction crews have gone home, and a certificate of occupancy has been issued. A decade passes, and then another. The apartments are sold and the developer, contractor and architect move on to other projects. Any complaints about construction of the apartments in compliance with FHA accessibility requirements seem lost in the mists of time. And then comes the lawsuit. A disabled renter has discovered that the individual units are not FHA compliant and sues the entire original development team demanding that they renovate the entire complex. Surely such a claim is barred by the FHA’s two year statute of limitations. Unfortunately, in most of the U.S. it is not. More
Squabbles and Battles – when winning matters.
This week two district courts, one in Oregon and one in Florida, confronted defendants determined to make sure that no one would be allowed to know whether they had violated the FHA or ADA. One seems to involve only a pointless squabble that increased legal expenses for no good purpose. The other shows how a battle over discovery can provide a real victory for the property owner. More