## Facts

- Rosa Amalia Maeso Schroeder purchased a condominium unit at Concordia Gardens in Puerto Rico in 1981–82 and lived there while suffering from mental illness; she died by suicide on June 5, 1993.
- Her siblings sued as legal representatives of her estate and in their individual capacities.
- Defendants were members of the condominium association’s board and a condominium handyman.
- Plaintiffs alleged defendants discriminated against and harassed the decedent because of her mental illness by:
  - initiating groundless accusations (including breach of the peace and misappropriation of common property),
  - threatening to file baseless criminal charges, and
  - entering her unit without consent to search for allegedly missing common property.
- Plaintiffs alleged defendants intimidated the decedent and intentionally restricted her use of common areas because of her mental illness.
- Plaintiffs sought monetary damages under the Fair Housing Amendments Act (FHAA), asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 3604(f) and 3617.

## Issues

1. Whether the FHAA applies to post-acquisition conduct by a condominium association and its agents that affects a unit owner’s use of common areas and enjoyment of her dwelling.
2. Whether the decedent’s estate and her siblings, in their individual capacities, have standing to sue for alleged FHAA violations.
3. Whether the complaint stated plausible claims under §§ 3604(f) and 3617 sufficient to survive dismissal under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).

## Decision

- The court denied defendants’ motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim.
- The court held the FHAA is not limited to the initial sale or rental transaction and can reach discriminatory conduct affecting the services, facilities, privileges, and use associated with a dwelling.
- The court held plaintiffs adequately alleged standing both as representatives of the estate and in their personal capacities.
- The court ruled the complaint’s allegations, accepted as true at the pleading stage, were sufficient to proceed under §§ 3604(f)(2) and 3617.

## Legal Principles

- FHAA § 3604(f)(2) can cover discrimination in the “terms, conditions, or privileges” of housing and in the provision of “services or facilities” connected to a dwelling, including conduct occurring after acquisition.
- FHAA § 3617 prohibits coercion, intimidation, threats, or interference with the exercise or enjoyment of FHAA-protected housing rights; harassment and intimidation tied to disability allegations may fall within this provision.
- Entities that control residential conditions and access to common facilities (including condominium associations) may be proper defendants under the FHAA, even if they are not the original seller, landlord, or a commercial housing provider.
- Under the FHAA’s broad enforcement language, “any person” claiming injury from a discriminatory housing practice may have standing; at the motion-to-dismiss stage, plausible allegations of injury suffice.
- On Rule 12(b)(6), the court accepts well-pleaded factual allegations as true and draws reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiffs; dismissal is improper where the alleged facts could constitute FHAA discrimination or interference.

## Conclusion

The district court permitted FHAA claims to proceed where a condominium unit owner allegedly faced disability-based harassment and restrictions affecting her use and enjoyment of her home and common areas, and it held that both the decedent’s estate and family members could adequately plead standing at the dismissal stage.


Schroeder v. De Bertolo, 879 F. Supp. 173 (D.P.R. 1995)