## Facts

- Chanticleer Condominium Association governed an 84-unit condominium complex in Hinsdale, Illinois.
- Since 1985, the declaration included a covenant barring minor children under 18 from residing in units purchased after the amendment, absent prior written board approval; violations were subject to injunctive relief and a $10,000 fine.
- The covenant was applied as a practical bar on sales to purchasers with minor children.
- Chanticleer had many residents aged 55 or older, but it had no formal minimum age above 18, and the association’s president stated it was intended for residents of “any age over 18.”
- Stephen and Kathleen Simovits bought a unit in 1993; before closing, they were informed of the covenant and signed an acknowledgment agreeing to follow the rules while expressing a belief that the covenant was illegal.
- In 1995, the Simovits listed the unit for sale and lost potential buyers with children; they ultimately sold to a childless couple at a reduced price after the association agreed to waive the covenant for that sale.
- HOPE Fair Housing Center assisted the Simovits and alleged it diverted resources to investigate and challenge the covenant and to monitor future compliance.
- After the suit was filed, the association attempted to characterize Chanticleer as senior housing by conducting a resident age survey, including guessed ages and without prior systematic age-verification procedures.

## Issues

1. Whether the covenant excluding minor children constituted unlawful familial-status discrimination under the Fair Housing Act (FHA), or was exempt as “housing for older persons” under 42 U.S.C. § 3607(b)(2).
2. Whether the Simovits and HOPE had standing to sue under the FHA.
3. Whether the Simovits were estopped from challenging the covenant because they knew of it at purchase and signed documents agreeing to comply.
4. What damages and equitable relief were warranted, including economic damages, emotional-distress damages, punitive damages, and injunctive relief.

## Decision

- The court held the “no children” covenant violated the FHA’s prohibition on familial-status discrimination.
- The court held Chanticleer did not qualify for the § 3607(b)(2) “55 and older” exemption because it failed to show reliable evidence that at least 80% of occupied units included a person 55 or older and failed to demonstrate intent and operation as 55+ housing.
- The court held both the Simovits and HOPE had standing; the Simovits proved economic injury from a reduced sale price and additional mortgage payments, and HOPE proved organizational injury from diverted resources and expenditures.
- The court rejected estoppel; knowledge of the covenant and contractual acknowledgment did not bar enforcement of federal fair-housing rights.
- The court awarded the Simovits $12,500 for diminution in value plus over $3,500 in additional mortgage payments; it denied emotional-distress damages for insufficient proof.
- The court awarded HOPE $7,230 in compensatory economic damages.
- The court awarded punitive damages of $10,000 to the Simovits and $10,000 to HOPE and entered injunctive relief requiring the association to cease discriminatory practices and comply with the FHA.

## Legal Principles

- A rule excluding minor children is facial discrimination based on familial status and violates the FHA unless a statutory exemption applies.
- The “housing for older persons” exemption for 55+ housing requires both (1) at least 80% of occupied units to include at least one resident 55 or older and (2) a demonstrated intent and operation as 55+ housing, supported by reliable evidence and verification practices.
- A “no children” policy alone does not establish intent or operation as 55+ housing under § 3607(b)(2).
- FHA standing is broad; individual plaintiffs have standing upon showing a concrete injury traceable to discriminatory conduct.
- Fair-housing organizations have standing and may recover damages when discrimination causes diversion of resources and measurable expenditures.
- Contractual consent or prior knowledge of a discriminatory covenant does not waive or bar FHA claims; private agreements cannot authorize conduct prohibited by federal civil-rights law.
- Compensatory damages may include diminution in value and consequential losses caused by the discriminatory practice; emotional-distress damages require adequate evidentiary support.
- Punitive damages and injunctive relief may be awarded where the defendant acts with reckless or callous indifference to federally protected rights and ongoing compliance measures are needed.

## Conclusion

The court found Chanticleer’s covenant barring minor children to be unlawful familial-status discrimination, rejected the association’s claimed 55+ exemption and estoppel defenses, and granted compensatory damages to the owners and the fair-housing organization, punitive damages to both, and an injunction to end and prevent further discriminatory practices.


Simovits v. Chanticleer Condo. Ass'n, 933 F. Supp. 1394 (N.D. Ill. 1996)