## Facts

- A homeowners’ association (HOA) governed a residential subdivision subject to recorded declarations restricting lots to “residential purposes only” and barring specified nonresidential uses, including “charitable” and similar purposes.
- A nonprofit service provider owned and operated a house within the subdivision as a group home for developmentally disabled adults, who lived there as their residence.
- The HOA sent a letter demanding that the operator not move the residents into the home, asserting the use violated the “residential purposes only” covenant and could violate a separate covenant barring noxious or nuisance activity.
- The HOA then filed a state-court action seeking to enforce the covenants against the operator.
- Florida’s designated protection-and-advocacy organization and the individual residents sued the HOA in federal court under the Fair Housing Act (FHA), seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.
- Plaintiffs alleged the HOA’s enforcement position amounted to a refusal to make a reasonable accommodation in rules, policies, practices, or services necessary to afford disabled persons an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.
- The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether permitting the developmentally disabled residents to live in the home despite the HOA’s deed restrictions is a reasonable accommodation necessary to afford an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling under 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B).
2. Whether the HOA could avoid FHA liability by characterizing its conduct as merely using the state court system to enforce facially neutral covenants.

## Decision

- The court granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and denied the HOA’s motion.
- The court held that allowing the residents to live in the home constituted a reasonable and necessary accommodation under the FHA.
- The court rejected the HOA’s argument that the group home was a prohibited nonresidential use where the residents’ actual use of the property was residential.
- The court concluded the HOA’s effort to enforce the covenant to exclude the residents violated the FHA’s reasonable-accommodation requirement.
- The court granted declaratory and injunctive relief, including an injunction barring the HOA from enforcing the “residential purposes only” covenant to prevent the residents’ occupancy, including through the pending state-court enforcement action.

## Legal Principles

- The FHA prohibits discrimination because of disability, including refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services when necessary to afford an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B).
- A group home can qualify as a residential use where disabled individuals reside in the dwelling; labeling the use as “charitable” or “institutional” does not defeat an accommodation claim when the relevant use is residential occupancy.
- An accommodation is “necessary” when, without it, disabled individuals would be denied an equal opportunity to live in the community.
- Reasonableness turns on the burden to the housing provider and legitimate interests served; minimal or unsupported claims of adverse impacts do not justify refusal.
- An HOA’s pursuit of covenant enforcement through litigation may be actionable when it seeks to enforce restrictions in a manner that violates the FHA; using courts does not immunize discriminatory enforcement.

## Conclusion

The court held the FHA required the HOA to accommodate developmentally disabled residents by allowing their group home to operate as a residential use and enjoined the HOA from enforcing deed restrictions to exclude them, including via state-court enforcement efforts.


Advocacy Ctr. for Persons with Disabilities, Inc. v. Woodlands Estates Ass'n, Inc., 192 F. Supp. 2d 1344 (M.D. Fla. 2002)