This page was updated 5/22/02.
First Judicial Circuit
Maine
State Court Decisions
Housing Authority of City of Bangor v. Maheux
748 A.2d 474 (Me. 2000)
Keys: L-TBR, L-EVI, L-CON, O-PRC
The defendant lived in an apartment with her son, who had oppositional defiant
disorder. The housing authority terminated the mother's lease because her son's
behavior "disrupted the right of other tenants to the quiet enjoyment of
their homes," and violated the lease. The mother asserted that, under the
Fair Housing Act, the housing authority had a duty to reasonably accommodate
her son's disability by providing a six-month delay before finalizing the decision
to evict, enabling her son to receive counseling for his behavior. The lower
court ruled for the landlord, noting that it would be months before such counseling
would take effect, during which disruption of the neighbors would continue.
However, the court held that if the mother could show that her son would be
continually supervised, this would make the six-month delay reasonable and the
landlord would have to provide the accommodation. The mother told the landlord
that her child would be supervised and eviction proceedings were stayed. Supervision,
however, proved unsuccessful and the eviction was reinstated. The mother appealed
the decision to reinstate the eviction, but her appeal was dismissed as not
timely because it was more than 30 days after the initial judgment was in favor
of the housing authority.
Significance: This case emphasizes the procedural complications that can arise
when a tenant raises a reasonable accommodation defense to a landlord's attempt
to evict. The appeals court noted its disapproval of the lower court's judgment
in favor of the landlord, while at the same time giving the tenant an opportunity
to provide more evidence of the reasonableness of the desired accommodation
before the writ was issued. As a practical matter, the judge suggested that
future courts faced with this issue should consider the landlord's claim and
the tenant's defense at the same time. If the court then finds that the landlord
failed to grant a reasonable accommodation, the court should enter judgment
for the tenant. If, on the other hand, the findings of fact show that the tenant
was not entitled to an accommodation, the court should enter judgment for the
landlord, allowing eviction.
Massachusetts
State Court Decisions
Yegsigian v. Gumble
No. CA991789, 2000 WL 33159197 (Mass. Super. Aug. 14, 2000)
Key: Z-PRC
A man with obsessive-compulsive disorder was denied public housing by the Worcester
Housing Authority because he had a record of disturbing neighbors and engaging
in housekeeping so substandard that it infringed on the welfare of other tenants.
Though he offered to agree to certain conditions placed on his tenancy, including
regular visits from a homemaker, the housing authority, and later the state
Department of Housing and Community Development, denied his application. On
appeal, the court was unable to address the claims either under the Fair Housing
Act or state housing anti-discrimination laws, since the plaintiff had not brought
a claim of discrimination based on his disability at the administrative level.
According to the state's administrative procedures, court review of agency decisions
is limited to information in the record from below. Though a court may hear
additional evidence under some circumstances, this plaintiff made no motion
for further evidence to be heard.
Significance: Advocates are cautioned to choose their forums carefully, because
they may be barred from bringing a discrimination claim if it has previously
been considered by another court or administrative body. Here, it would have
made sense for the plaintiff to avoid the administrative process and bring the
claim directly in court.
For more information, email michaela@bazelon.org
|
