Lexplug logoLexplug

Dyan Hunt v. Aimco Properties, L.P.

United States Court of Appeals
814 F.3d 1213 (2016)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A landlord's discriminatory actions that initiate an eviction process, such as issuing non-renewal notices based on a tenant's disability-related conduct, can constitute 'making a dwelling unavailable' under the Fair Housing Act, even if the tenant is ultimately not evicted due to an intervening event. Furthermore, a tenant's request for a reasonable accommodation does not require formal language, so long as it is sufficient to put the housing provider on notice of the disability and the desire for an accommodation.


Facts:

  • Dyan Hunt and her adult son, Karl Hunt, who has Down Syndrome causing him to function intellectually as a seven-year-old, resided at the Reflections apartment complex owned by Aimco Properties.
  • On August 13, 2012, Aimco sent the Hunts an invitation to renew their lease.
  • On August 30, 2012, the apartment manager, Anne-Valery Jackson, accused Karl of threatening to harm staff and set the property on fire.
  • Dyan Hunt explained to Ms. Jackson that Karl was describing a cartoon he watched, had a speech impediment, and meant no harm.
  • The next day, Ms. Jackson and a sheriff's deputy came to the Hunts' apartment, and the deputy warned Karl he would be arrested if he went near the community clubhouse or office.
  • Dyan Hunt called Ms. Jackson again, apologized, and stated she was looking for a daytime organization for Karl to attend to prevent future misunderstandings.
  • Aimco subsequently posted a Seven Day Notice of Noncompliance on the Hunts' door, followed by a Notice of Non-Renewal requiring them to vacate by November 19, 2012.
  • Before the Hunts vacated, a new management company bought the property, investigated the situation, determined Karl was not a threat, and allowed the Hunts to remain.

Procedural Posture:

  • Dyan Hunt, on behalf of herself and her son Karl, filed a complaint against Aimco Properties in federal district court alleging violations of the Fair Housing Act (FHA).
  • The district court granted Aimco's motion to dismiss the complaint without prejudice.
  • The Hunts filed a Second Amended Complaint, adding a claim for failure to reasonably accommodate under the FHA.
  • Aimco again moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
  • The district court granted Aimco's second motion to dismiss, this time with prejudice.
  • The Hunts, as appellants, appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, with Aimco as the appellee.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a complaint state plausible claims for relief under the Fair Housing Act for (1) making housing unavailable, (2) discriminating in terms and conditions, and (3) failing to make a reasonable accommodation, when a landlord issues non-renewal notices based on disability-related conduct but the tenant is ultimately not evicted, and the tenant's mother explains the conduct and proposes a solution to prevent future incidents?


Opinions:

Majority - Pryor, J.

Yes. The complaint plausibly states claims for relief under the Fair Housing Act because a landlord's discriminatory actions that would lead to eviction, even if not completed, can make housing 'unavailable,' and a request for accommodation need not be formal. The court reasoned that the FHA protects renters not only from actual eviction but also from discriminatory actions that initiate the eviction process. Aimco's issuance of a Notice of Non-Renewal made the apartment unavailable to the Hunts, causing them to suffer damages by preparing to move, regardless of the fact that a new owner later intervened. The complaint also stated a plausible claim for discrimination in the terms and conditions of housing because Aimco allegedly used the police to bar Karl from common areas based on his disability. Finally, Dyan Hunt's explanation of Karl's disability and her proposal to find him a daytime program was sufficient to constitute a request for a reasonable accommodation, which Aimco illegally ignored.



Analysis:

This decision broadens the interpretation of 'making housing unavailable' under the FHA, clarifying that the provision applies to discriminatory actions that start an eviction process, even if the tenant is not ultimately dispossessed. It establishes that the harm and damages incurred during such a process are sufficient to state a claim. The ruling also adopts a liberal, notice-based standard for what constitutes a request for a reasonable accommodation, lowering the pleading burden for plaintiffs by rejecting a requirement for formal or 'magic words.' This precedent makes it easier for tenants in the Eleventh Circuit to bring FHA claims based on threatened, but uncompleted, evictions and informal requests for accommodation.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Dyan Hunt v. Aimco Properties, L.P. (2016)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"