Guenther v. Walnut Grove Hillside Condo. Regime No. 3
309 Neb. 655 (2021)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Fair Housing Act, a requested accommodation is not 'necessary' if a claimant fails to prove it is indispensable or essential for their equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling, particularly when other effective alternatives are available.
Facts:
- Christine Guenther owns a condominium unit governed by the Walnut Grove Hillside Condominium Regime No. 3, Inc. (Walnut Grove), a homeowners' association (HOA).
- Guenther's daughter, N.G., who lives with her part-time, has diagnosed major depressive disorder and anxiety disorder and uses two dogs as emotional support animals.
- N.G.'s previous emotional support dog was killed outside the condominium, causing N.G. anxiety regarding the safety of her current dogs.
- In February 2018, Guenther requested permission from Walnut Grove to build a fence in a common area behind her unit to provide a secure space for the dogs, offering to pay for it herself.
- Walnut Grove denied the request, citing bylaws that prohibit dividing or partitioning general common elements.
- Walnut Grove proposed several alternatives, including an underground invisible fence, a privacy fence around Guenther's patio, or tethering the dogs while outside.
- For approximately two years, Guenther's next-door neighbor, Carol Bolton, has allowed Guenther to use her fenced-in yard for the emotional support dogs.
Procedural Posture:
- Christine Guenther filed a complaint for declaratory judgment against Walnut Grove Hillside Condominium Regime No. 3, Inc. in the District Court for Douglas County, Nebraska, a court of first instance.
- The district court held a bench trial on the matter.
- Following the trial, the district court entered a judgment dismissing Guenther's complaint, finding she failed to prove her claim under the Fair Housing Act.
- Guenther, as the appellant, appealed the district court's judgment. The Nebraska Supreme Court, the state's highest court, moved the case to its docket on its own motion.
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 homeowners' association's refusal to grant an exception to its bylaws for the construction of a fence in a common area violate the Fair Housing Act's reasonable accommodation provision when the claimant fails to prove the fence is necessary for the equal use and enjoyment of the dwelling?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Funke
No. The homeowners' association's refusal to permit the fence did not violate the Fair Housing Act because the claimant failed to prove the accommodation was necessary. To prevail on a reasonable accommodation claim under the FHA, a plaintiff bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the accommodation is (1) reasonable, (2) necessary, and (3) required to afford a person with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. The court found that Guenther failed to meet the 'necessity' requirement. The term 'necessary' is linked to the goal of equal opportunity and requires a showing that the accommodation is indispensable or essential, not merely a preference that enhances quality of life. The evidence showed that N.G. could already freely use and enjoy the emotional support animals without the requested fence. Furthermore, effective alternatives existed and were being used, such as the neighbor's fenced-in yard, and others were proposed by the HOA. A claimant is not entitled to their preferred accommodation when other effective alternatives satisfy the FHA's goal.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the significant burden on plaintiffs to prove the 'necessity' element in Fair Housing Act reasonable accommodation claims. The court's holding clarifies that 'necessary' means indispensable, not merely beneficial or preferred. By emphasizing that the existence of viable alternatives—whether proposed by the housing provider or already available—can defeat a claim of necessity, the decision provides a strong defense for homeowners' associations and landlords. Future litigants must be prepared to demonstrate not only that an accommodation addresses a disability-related need but also that no other reasonable alternatives would suffice to provide an equal opportunity for enjoyment of the dwelling.
Unlock the full brief for Guenther v. Walnut Grove Hillside Condo. Regime No. 3