Court Says Disabled Homeowner is entitled to a “Reasonable” Accommodation, not an Accommodation of Their Choice

This case involved a dispute between a homeowners association (“Association”) and a homeowner (“Owner”) over Owner’s right to an accommodation from Association’s deed restriction. The restriction prohibits owners from erecting fences on their property unless they submit detailed specifications to the Association, along with a $25.00 review fee, and Association approves the project in writing.

Prior to Owner purchasing her home, she was aware of the deed restriction, but after she purchased her home, she constructed a fence around her backyard without having first submitting the required application requesting approval of the fence. Owner’s justification for constructing the fence was that it was necessary because she suffers from several medical illnesses for which she has been prescribed, and owned, an emotional support dog. She also owned a registered service dog.

Prior to filing a law suit against Owner, Association requested that she remove the fence and informed her of reasonable alternatives that would not violate the deed restrictions and which would allow her dogs to use her backyard without requiring her presence. Association also offered to approve the fence retroactively if Owner obtained consent from all of her neighbors, but she was not able to obtain such consents. Thereafter, when Owner continued in her refusal to remove the fence, Association filed suit against Owner seeking an injunction to prevent Owner from maintaining the fence on her property.

In response to Association’s action, Owner filed a motion for summary judgment in which she contended that Association had violated the Fair Housing Act and equivalent state laws, as well as other laws which protect persons with disabilities. Owner claimed that she was a “protected” person under those laws and that she needed a fence to keep her dogs, which she contended was a “reasonable accommodation” that should be granted to her.

The trial court denied the motion for summary judgment after finding that Owner was aware of the restriction before she purchased her property, and she had reasonable alternatives to the fence in question. Because Owner was in violation of the deed restrictions in question, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Association. After the trial court denied Owner’s motion for reconsideration, Owner filed an appeal in which she contended that, by attempting to enforce the deed restriction in question, Association was discriminating against her under the Fair Housing Act, which prohibits discrimination against a buyer of a house because of that person’s handicap or disability.

On review, the appellate court: