Share
An Illinois federal district court has ruled on whether a lawsuit against a condominium association and its property manager for violations of the federal Fair Housing Act can proceed when handicapped resident alleged that nothing was done to protect him from harassment by other tenants and that the resident's requested accommodations were refused.
Michael Scialabba ("Resident") was in a 1984 car accident which caused him long-term severe disabilities, limiting his ability to work and communicate. Unable to take care of himself, the Resident was forced to live with his parents ("Parents") in the Sierra Blanca Condominium Number One Association ("Association"), which was managed by ABC Property Managers ("Manager"). While living in the Association, other tenants allegedly harassed the resident continually concerning his disabilities, referring to him as "retard face" and "pervert." When the Parents reported the harassment to the Association and the Manager, they allegedly refused to do anything about the harassment and also refused to accommodate Resident's occasional outbursts which the harassment caused. Instead, they limited the Resident's access to the onsite pool. In 1996, the Association filed a $1,000 lien against the Resident and the Parents for alleged violations of the Association's rules and filed another lien for $3,500 a few months later. Subsequently, a state court dismissed the Association's lawsuit to foreclose the liens.
At the same time the liens were filed, the Parents consulted with the HOPE Fair Housing Center ("Housing Group"), who tried to negotiate a reasonable accommodation for the Resident's disabilities by requesting that the Association institute a fair housing policy and instruct both the lifeguards at the pool and the Association's other residents on the federal Fair Housing Act ("Act"). The Act is designed to eliminate discrimination from the housing marketplace. The Association allegedly responded to the Housing Group by stating that the only acceptable resolution would be for the Resident to undergo psychiatric treatment and, following that, to be accompanied by an adult at all times while in the common areas of the property. The Parents and Resident then filed a "housing discrimination" complaint with the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD"). When the Department did not issue a determination of their housing complaint after more than two years, they withdrew the complaint and filed a multi-count lawsuit in federal court. The Association and Manager moved to dismiss the complaint.
The United States Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern District, granted in part and denied it in part the motion to dismiss filed by the Association and the Manager. The court first reviewed the allegations contained Count I of the lawsuit. Count I alleged violations of section 3604(f)(2) of the Act, which prohibits handicap discrimination "in the provision of services or facilities in connection with [a] dwelling," because the Association placed restrictions on the Resident's use of the facilities. The court ruled that the allegations in Count I stated a claim, and so the court denied the motion to dismiss Count I.
Next, the court considered Count II, which alleged violations section 3617 because the Association and Manager "coerced, intimidated, threatened, and/or interfered with [the Resident and Parents'] enjoyment of their dwelling," which mirrored the language of the Act. The court stated that these allegations supported a violation of the Act as did the allegations in Count III, which alleged a hostile housing environment arising out of Counts I and II. Court IV alleged violations of the Act for refusing to make an accommodation for the Resident's disabilities, which the court found the complaint supported since the requests for specific accommodations for the Resident were refused by the Association and the Manager.
Counts V-VIII alleged that the Association and the Manager breached their fiduciary duties under the Illinois Condominium Act to the Resident and Parents by failing to follow the Association's bylaws and also for failing to make accommodations required under both state and federal law. The court said the allegations in these counts were sufficient to state a claim against the Association, but failed to state a claim against the Manager because property managers do not owe a fiduciary duty to condominium owners like the Resident and his Parents. Thus, the court dismissed the Manager from Counts V-VIII.
The Association and Manager also raised the statute of limitations defense to certain allegations. The court ruled that the Association and Manager had failed to allege enough facts to raise the defense against Counts V-VII because they failed to specifically identify what events were time-barred, but the court ruled that the statute of limitations was a defense to the allegations contained in Count IX. Count IX alleged intentional infliction of emotional distress by the Association and the Manager, and the statute of limitation for such actions is two years. The Parents and Resident did not dispute that the allegations concerned events which occurred more than two years prior to the date of filing, but argued that they could still bring the claim under the doctrine of equitable tolling. The doctrine of equitable tolling allows a party to make a claim past the statute of limitations term period when the party demonstrates that, despite the exercise of reasonable diligence, all of the facts necessary to bring a claim were not known. The court rejected this argument, ruling that the facts necessary to file an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim were known by the Parents and Resident more than two years ago and thus the statute of limitations barred the allegations contained in Count IX. The court also rejected the Parents and Resident's additional argument that a provision in the Act which specifically delays the statute of limitations while matters are pending before an administrative agency (like HUD), ruling that the provision only applied to claims made pursuant to the Act and not tort claims. Thus, the court denied in part and granted in part the Association and Manager's motion to dismiss.
Scialabba v. Sierra Blanca Condominium Number One Assoc., No. 00 C 5344, 2000 WL 1889664 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 27, 2000). [This is a citation to a Westlaw document. Westlaw is a subscription, on-line legal research service. If an official reporter citation should become available for this case, the citation will be updated to reflect this information].
Editor's Note: The case settled prior to trial, with the condominium association agreeing to pay the Scialabbas and the Fair Housing group $110,000.
Print Format
E-Mail Article