<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">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):<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">“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.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">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
<u>Salute</u>: <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="color:#1F497D">“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.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">For more, see:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="color:#1F497D">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Salute v. Stratford Greens Garden Apartments, 136 F.3d 293, 302 (2d Cir. 1998)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">And further:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="color:#1F497D">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Schanz v. Vill. Apartments, 998 F. Supp. 784, 792 (E.D. Mich. 1998)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">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.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a name="Paul_Neumiller"><span style="color:#1F497D"><img width="250" height="150" id="_x0000_i1025" src="cid:image002.jpg@01D2CA64.C2FFA580"></span></a><span style="color:white"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com [mailto:wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Robert S Schuck<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, May 11, 2017 2:10 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> 'WSBA Real Property Listserv' <wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [WSBARP] eviction of tenant with disability<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Robert S. Schuck<br>
Kennedy,Schuck & Miller, PLLC<br>
1520 140th NE, Suite 200<br>
Bellevue, WA 98005<br>
(425)451-3760 (telephone)<br>
(425)451-3878 (facsimile)<br>
<a href="mailto:rsschuck@ksmlawfirm.com"><span style="color:blue">rsschuck@ksmlawfirm.com</span></a>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size:10.0pt">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 or at
</span></i><a href="mailto:rsschuck@qwest0ffice.net" title="blocked::mailto:rsschuck@kshmlaw.com"><i><span style="color:blue">rsschuck@ksmlawfirm.com</span></i></a><i><span style="font-size:10.0pt"> Thank you.</span></i><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">
</span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>