## Facts

- Ajit Bhogaita, an Air Force veteran with PTSD, owned a condominium unit subject to an association rule barring dogs over 25 pounds.
- In 2008, Bhogaita obtained a dog, Kane, who exceeded the weight limit; Kane’s presence alleviated Bhogaita’s PTSD symptoms.
- In May 2010, the association demanded Kane’s removal under the weight rule.
- Bhogaita responded with letters from his treating psychiatrist stating that Bhogaita’s mental illness limited social interaction and coping with stress and anxiety, and that an emotional support animal was prescribed to assist him in using and enjoying his dwelling.
- A follow-up letter identified Kane as the prescribed emotional support animal and described Bhogaita’s therapeutic relationship with that specific dog.
- The association sent a questionnaire requesting additional details, including the “exact nature” of the impairment, treatment duration, number of sessions, and why a large dog was necessary, along with questions about training.
- Bhogaita provided an additional psychiatrist letter further describing functional limitations and provided his own answers, but the association continued to press enforcement of the pet policy and pursued (and later dismissed) related state-court proceedings.
- Bhogaita sued under the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and a parallel Florida statute for failure to provide a reasonable accommodation.
- After trial, a jury found for Bhogaita and awarded $5,000 in compensatory damages; the court awarded over $100,000 in attorneys’ fees.
- The association appealed the judgment and the fee award.

## Issues

1. Whether the association violated the FHA by refusing to reasonably accommodate Bhogaita’s request to keep an emotional support dog despite the 25-pound rule.
2. Whether ongoing requests for additional documentation and delay could amount to a constructive denial of an accommodation request.
3. Whether the association’s requested information was reasonably necessary to evaluate the request or was extraneous.
4. Whether the district court erred in upholding the verdict and awarding attorneys’ fees.

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the judgment on the jury verdict and affirmed the attorneys’ fee award.
- The evidence supported findings that Bhogaita was disabled, that the emotional support dog was necessary to afford equal opportunity to use and enjoy the dwelling, and that the accommodation was reasonable.
- The association’s repeated demands for information beyond what was needed, coupled with delay and continued enforcement efforts, supported a finding of constructive denial (and thus refusal) under the FHA.
- The district court did not commit reversible error in evidentiary or trial rulings challenged on appeal.
- As the prevailing party, Bhogaita was entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in calculating the award.

## Legal Principles

- The FHA prohibits refusing reasonable accommodations in rules or policies when necessary to afford a person with a disability equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.
- A reasonable accommodation may include allowing an emotional support animal notwithstanding a restrictive pet rule, including size or weight limits, where a disability-related need is shown.
- A housing provider may seek information sufficient to verify disability and the disability-related need for the accommodation, but it may not delay decision-making by repeatedly demanding information that is not reasonably necessary.
- A refusal can be shown by constructive denial, including undue delay or failure to act on an adequately supported request.
- Prevailing plaintiffs in FHA actions may recover reasonable attorneys’ fees, subject to district-court discretion.

## Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit upheld liability where a condominium association effectively refused an emotional-support-animal accommodation by prolonging review and seeking unnecessary details after receiving adequate documentation of disability and need, and it affirmed the resulting damages and fee award.


Bhogaita v. Altamonte Heights Condo. Ass’n, 765 F.3d 1277 (11th Cir. 2014)