Articles

Among those horrifying things cooperative attorneys at our office, hear about are Board members who still do not get it! Did you know that there is such a thing as a “Fair Housing Tester?” Did you also know that these Testers are paid employees and that they are paid to contact your cooperative to see if your Board members and Management Staff are ensuring an equal opportunity to housing for all persons in protected classes? Can you even name all of the protected classes?

Every Housing Cooperative establishes a set of membership application and eligibility criteria. Screening applications, while itself is not an unlawful practice if decisions do not violate the Fair Housing Act for discrimination against one or more protected classes (i.e., race or color, religion, sex, national origin, familial status or disability) or other relative federal, state and local laws, serves a legitimate purpose. These purposes include insuring that members can meet financial obligations, that members and their immediate family meet occupancy standards for certain sized dwelling units, and passing criminal background checks.

On December 19, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued an Opinion affirming a Michigan federal District Court’s dismissal of a condominium unit owner’s lawsuit alleging discrimination under the Fair Housing Act against a condominium association for its failure to ban smoking as a reasonable accommodation request. This case carries significance for condominium and other association-based communities in how courts continue to address claims under the Fair Housing Act relating to smoking inside a building or unit and the odors that result. This article goes over the history of the case, the Sixth Circuit Court’s opinion and analysis, as well as some key things that the association did that were noteworthy in the opinion.

On September 17, 2020, a Michigan Court of Appeals panel unanimously held, in Riverbrook v. Fabode, that trial courts are “… required to consider reliability of methods employed by counselor as expert, as well as her final opinion in letter that tenant required an ESA because of a disability, before determining whether owner of mobile home park had refused to make a reasonable accommodation as required by the FHA.” Riverbrook v Fabode, No. 349065, 2020 WL 5580152 (Mich. Ct. App., Sept. 17, 2020). In Riverbrook, the trial court erroneously rejected the landlord of a mobile home’s evidentiary challenges to the reliability and methods of collection of the tenant’s medical documentation to support ​his reasonable accommodation request for an Emotional Support Animal (“ESA”). Because of the Court of Appeals ruling in Riverbrook, Housing Cooperatives seeking information from members in reasonable accommodation requests for emotional support animals, are now permitted to ask for reliable disability-related information. Although these reasonable accommodation requests should be considered on a “case-by-case” basis, Riverbrook provides additional guidance for what information Cooperatives may seek when considering the request.

This is my confession of how I became an ESA and not a pet. I can’t reveal my name, but let’s just say I’m a dog who is pretty good at typing. This a true story. (Just trust me on this.)

It is worth reminding Cooperatives of some basic pitfalls that may easily sink your summary or eviction proceeding against members. Whether your Cooperative has initiated an eviction for non-payment of monthly carrying charges or fees, or is terminating membership based on material non-compliance, a common question arises: What does the Cooperative do with that member’s monthly carrying or occupancy charges?

Personal injury lawsuits typically arise in housing cooperatives when a member, a person of a member’s family, or guest are injured on the Cooperative’s real property. Injuries can range from slip-and-falls, physical confrontations or fighting, to criminal assault and battery. Since the range of different types of cases in which a Cooperative may be defending claims seeking liability and damages, this serves as an important reminder to Cooperatives, of the legal responsibilities that Cooperatives owe. Specifically, this article focuses on those duties owed to non-members, such as guests.

Cooperative Housing organizations and their management companies are often faced with requests from guests to bring dogs and other animals onto the premises when visiting members. What should the cooperatives response be to these requests? In most cases the response will depend on the type of animal or dog involved. Not all animals are created equal according to the law. There are emotional support animals, service animals, and pets. What’s the difference?

The spring, summer and fall often bring Cooperative members out into common hallways, areas, and outdoors. With this activity brings the potential for member conflict.