Browse cases by category
- Attorneys & Legal Services
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Procedure & Administrative Law
- Civil Rights
- Consumer
- Criminal
- Disability
- Economic Development
- Education
- Elections
- Employment
- Environmental Justice
- Evidence
- Family Law
- Food Programs
- Government and Governmental Services
- Guardianship & Conservatorship
- Health
- Housing
- Immigration
- Juveniles
- License (Auto & Others)
- Mental Health
- Migrants
- Native Americans
- Other
- Prisons
- Public Utilities & Energy
- Rural Issues
- Senior Citizens
- Social Security & SSI
- Taxation
- Torts
- Unemployment Compensation & Unemployment Insurance
- Veterans & Military
- Welfare
- Wills & Estates
- Workforce Development
St. George Villa Assocs. v. Barnhurst
No. 960500683EV (Utah Dist. Ct. Wash. County Oct. 25, 1996). ; Clearinghouse Number: 51581
Description
Eviction Dismissed for Landlord’s Failure in Reasonably Accommodating Tenant’s Mental Disability
Abstract
The court has dismissed the eviction of a mentally ill tenant from
subsidized housing because plaintiff landlord failed in reasonably
accommodating tenant’s mental disability in violation of
Section 3604(f)(3)(B) of the Fair Housing Amendments Act and
Section 794 of the Rehabilitation Act. Both laws require that a
landlord reasonably accommodate persons with disabilities. Tenant
had severe mental disabilities that impaired her ability to solve
the problems upon which the landlord based the eviction-rule
violations including unauthorized guests, guest disturbances,
failure to control guests, excessive noise, and housekeeping
problems. Landlord gave tenant several written notices and
warnings, including two notices of lease termination, and contacted
the local mental health agency eight to ten times. Tenant, however,
refused to work with the agency because it insisted on controlling
her money, which was not an issue in the tenancy dispute. The ten
or so contacts were the extent of landlord’s accommodation of
tenant’s disability. The court rejected landlord’s
argument that accommodation of the disability was unnecessary
because tenant rejected help from the agency. It reasoned, in part,
that while house rules incorporated into the lease sought to hold
tenant responsible for guests’ behavior, tenant was not
strictly liable because she was not necessarily aware of or able to
control others’ behavior; also the incidents complained of
were not sufficiently connected to tenant and were inadequate
grounds for eviction.
