## Facts

- Michigan Protection and Advocacy Service, Inc. (MPAS) and individuals with mental disabilities (or their guardians) sought housing at a single-family property on 24 Mile Road in Michigan for use as a group home.
- Florence Hammonds, a licensed real estate agent affiliated with a Century 21 franchise, owned the 24 Mile Road property and her principal residence.
- A state agency attempted to lease the 24 Mile Road property, but Hammonds chose to sell it to Nosh Ivanovic instead.
- Closing documents bore a Century 21 logo, but the property was not listed through the brokerage, and no commission was paid to Century 21.
- Plaintiffs alleged defendants made the dwelling unavailable because of the prospective residents’ disabilities, asserting claims under the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and related federal civil-rights statutes.

## Issues

1. Whether Hammonds’s sale of the 24 Mile Road property was exempt from the FHA under the single-family house exemption, 42 U.S.C. § 3603(b)(1).
2. Whether Hammonds’s status as a real estate agent and use of Century 21-branded forms meant she sold the house “with the services of” a broker or agent, defeating the exemption.
3. Whether plaintiffs produced sufficient evidence of disability-based discrimination or an actionable conspiracy by the remaining defendants to survive summary judgment under the FHA and related federal statutes.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for all defendants.
- The court held Hammonds’s sale fell within the FHA single-family house exemption because she owned no more than three single-family houses, did not use broker services in the sale, and there was no showing of prohibited advertising.
- The court rejected the argument that Hammonds’s license or the use of Century 21 forms, without evidence of brokerage services or a commission, removed the transaction from the exemption.
- The court held plaintiffs failed to present evidence sufficient for a reasonable factfinder to infer discriminatory intent, discriminatory conduct “because of handicap,” or an agreement supporting conspiracy claims; conclusory allegations and speculation were insufficient.

## Legal Principles

- The FHA single-family house exemption in 42 U.S.C. § 3603(b)(1) applies when a qualifying owner sells a single-family house without using the services of a real estate broker, agent, or salesman and otherwise satisfies the statute’s conditions.
- An owner’s status as a licensed real estate agent, and the use of branded or standard real estate forms, does not by itself establish that the owner used brokerage services for purposes of § 3603(b)(1).
- At summary judgment, plaintiffs must present admissible evidence from which a reasonable jury could find discrimination “because of handicap” under 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f) or an actionable conspiracy under federal civil-rights statutes; speculative or conclusory assertions do not create a genuine issue of material fact.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit upheld summary judgment because the owner-seller’s transaction qualified for the FHA’s single-family exemption and the plaintiffs did not produce evidence sufficient to permit a reasonable inference that the remaining defendants engaged in disability-based discrimination or a conspiratorial agreement.


Mich. Prot. & Advoc. Serv., Inc. v. Babin, 18 F.3d 337 (6th Cir. 1994)