[WSBARP] eviction of tenant with disability

Thu May 11 15:30:46 PDT 2017

Most landlords are prohibited from discrimination in housing.  42 USC 3604;
RCW 49.60.030 and .222.  A tenant who is being evicted for discriminatory
reasons or for failure to comply with a rule or or rent increase that is
discriminatory may raise the defense in an UD action.  *Josephinium Assoc.
v. Kahli*, 111 Wn. App. 617 (2002). I think this is just another way of
saying that a nexus is required per Paul's letter above.   Discrimination
includes failure to reasonably accommodate, and a reasonable accommodation
can be requested any time before a physical eviction occurs.  *Radecki v.
Joura*, 114 F.3d 115 (8th C.r. 1997).

On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 2:47 PM, Paul Neumiller <pneumiller at hotmail.com>
wrote:

> Had a serious confrontation with a disabled tenant a few years back and
> the language below is from a portion of my letter to her (don’t know if the
> research is still good):
>
>
>
> “3.         Regarding the reasonable accommodation, it does not appear
> that you are entitled to a reasonable accommodation to extend the lease
> beyond the lease’s natural expiration of June 30, 2013.  One type of
> disability discrimination prohibited by the Fair Housing Act is the refusal
> to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or
> services when such accommodations may be necessary to afford a person with
> a disability the equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.  First,
> there does not seem to be a relation or nexus between your disability and
> the requested accommodation.  Please provide me with additional information
> that shows the relationship between your disability and the need for the
> requested accommodation.  As you may know, simply being disabled is not
> enough of a reason for requesting an accommodation.  There must be some
> reasonable relation between the specific disability and the requested
> accommodation.  As you know, Mr. XXXX has already accepted your previous
> requested reasonable accommodation as to the installation and
> reestablishment of the washer and dryer hook-ups.
>
>
>
> You appear to argue that your disability prevents you from working and,
> therefore, are poor and unable to find alternative housing.  However, the
> courts have found that being poor is not an adequate basis for the purposes
> of a reasonable accommodation.  Indeed, you are making the same argument as
> the plaintiff in *Salute*:
>
>
>
> “We now turn to the more fundamental question of whether a landlord’s
> participation in the Section 8 program should be deemed an “accommodation”
> (regardless of its reasonableness) within the meaning of the statute.
> Plaintiffs' claim is a novel one because they do not contend that they
> require an accommodation that meets and fits their particular handicaps.
> Rather, they claim an entitlement to an accommodation that remedies their
> economic status, on the ground that this economic status results from their
> being handicapped.  We think it is fundamental that the law addresses the
> accommodation of handicaps, not the alleviation of economic disadvantages
> that may be correlated with having handicaps.”
>
>
>
> For more, see:
>
>
>
> Congress could not have intended the FHAA to require reasonable
> accommodations for those with handicaps every time a neutral policy imposes
> an adverse impact on individuals who are poor. The FHAA does not elevate
> the rights of the handicapped poor over the rights of the non-handicapped
> poor. Economic discrimination—such as the refusal to accept Section 8
> tenants—is not cognizable as a failure to make reasonable accommodations,
> in violation of § 3604(f)(3)(B). Accordingly, we affirm the district
> court's rejection of plaintiffs' claims under the “reasonable
> accommodations” provision of the FHAA.
>
>
>
> Salute v. Stratford Greens Garden Apartments, 136 F.3d 293, 302 (2d Cir.
> 1998)
>
>
>
> And further:
>
>
>
> Put simply, in the case at bar, plaintiff has no need for the Village to
> accept the Guarantor Agreement to accommodate his handicap because his
> handicap is not preventing him from obtaining an apartment at The Village.
> Instead, it is plaintiff's financial situation which impedes him from
> renting an apartment at The Village, and it is plaintiff's financial
> situation which he is requesting that defendants accommodate. The FHAA does
> not require that this be done. Also, while plaintiff argues that his
> financial situation is directly attributable to his handicap, such a
> contention is nothing more than an attempt by him to transform his
> “financial status” into a “handicap” in order to secure relief under the
> FHAA. This court cannot accept this argument because it clearly stretches
> the FHAA beyond its intended bounds.
>
> Schanz v. Vill. Apartments, 998 F. Supp. 784, 792 (E.D. Mich. 1998)
>
>
>
> Secondly, necessary reasonable accommodations afford a person with a
> disability the equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.  A
> non-disabled tenant does not have the unfettered right to extend a lease in
> the State of Washington beyond the lease’s natural expiration without the
> landlord’s consent.  Therefore, your requested accommodation exceeds the
> rights of even a non-disabled tenant.
>
>
>
> That being said, is there a possible alternative accommodation that would
> effectively address your disability-related needs without an extension
> under the lease?  Without further information, I am unable to understand if
> you are requesting an additional month to reside in the unit or if you are
> asking for the right to remain in the premises indefinitely.  Please
> clarify your request.”
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.
> wsbarppt.com] *On Behalf Of *Robert S Schuck
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 11, 2017 2:10 PM
> *To:* 'WSBA Real Property Listserv' <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
> *Subject:* [WSBARP] eviction of tenant with disability
>
>
>
> PC leased home to boss and now wants he and his wife out, lease expired.
> The wife is disabled and the tenant is threating the PC with lawsuit
> because of wife’s disability. I am familiar with LL?T law—but the
> disability issue is another complication.
>
> Robert S. Schuck
> Kennedy,Schuck & Miller, PLLC
> 1520 140th NE, Suite 200
> Bellevue, WA 98005
> (425)451-3760 <(425)%20451-3760> (telephone)
> (425)451-3878 <(425)%20451-3878> (facsimile)
> rsschuck at ksmlawfirm.com
>
>
>
> *This correspondence is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy
> Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, and may contain confidential information
> protected by Attorney-Client privilege. If you are not a person for whom
> this message was intended, please delete it from your system immediately,
> refrain from copying or forwarding any part of the message, and kindly
> notify me at (425) 451-3760 <(425)%20451-3760> or at *
> *rsschuck at ksmlawfirm.com* <rsschuck at qwest0ffice.net>*   Thank you.*
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WSBARP mailing list
> WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com
> http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20170511/c9864280/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 14511 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20170511/c9864280/image002.jpg>