Kromenhoek v. Cowpet Bay West Condominium Ass'n
77 F. Supp. 3d 462, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177002 (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A housing provider's delay in granting a reasonable accommodation does not constitute a constructive denial under the Fair Housing Act (FHA) if the resident was not deprived of the accommodation during the delay. Furthermore, a request for an accommodation is not legally effective until the provider is given sufficient information to conduct a meaningful review.
Facts:
- Judith Kromenhoek, an owner at Cowpet Bay West Condominium, suffered from an anxiety disorder.
- The Cowpet condominium community's rules and regulations, in place since at least 2007, prohibited dogs.
- On December 15, 2010, Kromenhoek's psychologist wrote a letter prescribing the use of an emotional support animal to alleviate her symptoms.
- In 2011, Kromenhoek gave documentation about her dog, Oliver, including the psychologist's letter, to the condominium's office manager but instructed the manager not to share the paperwork with the Board of Directors.
- On October 28, 2011, the Association's president, Max Harcourt, emailed Kromenhoek stating she was in violation of the 'no dogs' policy and must submit a formal application for a reasonable accommodation.
- In January 2012, the Board voted to assess a $50 daily fine for violating the 'no dogs' policy but informed Kromenhoek that any fines against her would be held in abeyance pending her request.
- Throughout the entire period, Kromenhoek was never forced to remove her dog from her unit and was not punished for its presence.
Procedural Posture:
- Judith Kromenhoek filed suit against the Cowpet Bay West Condominium Association, its Board, and several individuals in the U.S. District Court for the Virgin Islands, the court of first instance.
- Kromenhoek's complaint, which was amended twice, alleged violations of the federal Fair Housing Act (FHA), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and various local laws.
- The Association, the Board, and individual defendants filed separate motions for summary judgment, asking the court to dismiss the claims against them without a trial.
- The District Court held a hearing to consider the defendants' motions for summary judgment.
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 condominium association's delay in formally granting a resident an exemption to a 'no dogs' policy for an emotional support animal constitute a refusal to make a reasonable accommodation under the Fair Housing Act, when the resident initially prevented the association from reviewing her documentation and was never deprived of her animal?
Opinions:
Majority - Gómez, District Judge
No, the condominium association's delay does not constitute a refusal to make a reasonable accommodation under these circumstances. To succeed on a reasonable accommodation claim under the Fair Housing Act, a plaintiff must prove, among other things, that the defendant refused the requested accommodation. Here, there was no refusal, either explicit or constructive. First, Kromenhoek did not make a legally effective request for an accommodation until March 2012, because her earlier submission of documents in 2011 was coupled with an instruction not to share them with the Board, which deprived the Board of the ability to conduct a 'meaningful review.' Once she made a proper request in March 2012, it was granted within a month. Second, even assuming her 2011 submission was a valid request, the subsequent delay was not a constructive denial. Citing Overlook Mut. Homes, Inc. v. Spencer, the court reasoned that a delay does not amount to a denial when the resident is not deprived of the accommodation. Kromenhoek had access to her emotional support dog at all times, and the threatened fines were held in abeyance and ultimately waived.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the procedural requirements for making a successful reasonable accommodation claim under the FHA. It establishes that the onus is on the individual with a disability to make a request that is sufficiently clear and accessible to allow the housing provider a meaningful opportunity to review it. The ruling also narrows the scope of what constitutes a 'constructive denial,' protecting housing providers from liability for processing delays, so long as they do not actually deprive the resident of the needed accommodation during that time. This precedent distinguishes administrative delays from actionable refusals under federal housing law.
Unlock the full brief for Kromenhoek v. Cowpet Bay West Condominium Ass'n