Daily Development for Thursday, August 9,
by: Patrick A. Randolph, Jr.
Elmer F. Pierson Professor of Law
UMKC School of Law
Of Counsel: Blackwell Sanders Peper Martin
Kansas City, Missouri
SERVITUDES; USE RESTRICTIONS; LEASING; FAIR HOUSING: a restrictive covenant against renting houses in a CCR subdivision violated the Fair Housing Act because of its disparate impact on minorities in Kokomo, Inidiana. Quoting from the opinion as to the statistical analysis supporting the disparate impact finding that "the covenants exclude 56% of racial minority householders from the subdivision, and only 34% White alone householders from the subdivision":
Villas West Ii of Willowridge, Homeowners Assocation, Inc., v. Mcglothin, 841 N.E.2d 584; 2006 Ind. App. LEXIS 123 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006),
Of the 149 lots in Villas West II, there are 147 dwellings owned by white persons and 2 dwellings owned by African Americans. The racial mix of Villas West II is 98.7% white to 1.3% African American. The racial mix of the City of Kokomo is 86.69% white to 10.54% African American and 2.77% other racial minorities.
A plaintiff expert brought in models that he used showed that African American householders in Kokomo are far more likely to rent their homes than white householders. For example, comparing 30 year old persons with $40,000 per year income, an African American person has a 68% chance of renting a home as compared to a white person who has only a 34% chance of renting a home.
In light of this evidence, the trial court ruled, and the appeals court agreed, that the covenants have a greater adverse effect on the African American and racial minority householders than on white householders. The court concluded that the covenants limit interracial association between residents of Villas West II and householders of minority races to those householders of minority races who are able to buy homes in the subdivision, to the total exclusion of racial minority households who could rent homes in the subdivision if homes were available.
According to the evidence adduced by the association, 27% or 28% of African American households have income sufficient to rent homes in Villas West II if such homes were available for rent. By excluding all renters from Villas West II, the court concluded that the Association excludes minority households who can afford to rent homes in the subdivision as well as those who cannot afford to rent homes in the subdivision.
The court concluded that the evidence presented at trial establishes that plaiintiff made a significant statistical showing of a disparate impact, and this factor weighs in favor of plaintiff case. The court cited Hispanics United, 988 F.Supp. at 1155 (concluding that the plaintiffs demonstrated a discriminatory effect where 49 percent of those affected by the redevelopment plans were Hispanic while only 13.4 percent of the village's population was Hispanic).
Although the association had established a legitimate justification for the leasing restriction that leased units could adversely affect property values the court ultimately concluded that the plaintiffs had established that there were less restrictive alternatives available to accomplish the association's objective, namely, enforcement of the covenants concerning maintenance and upkeep of units: The covenants cited by the trial court in its findings govern exterior maintenance, maintenance of the dwelling, watering of lawns and shrubs, and prohibited uses and nuisances, such as noxious or offensive activities, accumulation of litter or trash, accumulation of junk vehicles, campers, boats, etc. on the property, construction of outbuildings, and leaving garage doors open. The trial court basically found that, if the basis for the leasing covenant is to maintain property values because renters do not care for the residences as well as owners, the properties can be maintained ju
st as well through the covenants listed above. The appeals court affirmed.
In summary, the court concluded that plaintiff made a prima facie showing of a violation of the Act, and, although the Association demonstrated a bona fide and legitimate justification for the housing action, plaintiff showed that less discriminatory alternatives were available.
The court indicated that this was a close case, but balanced in favor of affirming the holding that the leasing restrictions constituted discrimination in violation of federal law. The court, however, was cautious in forecasting the impact of this decision:
In [affirming here], we do not intend to imply that all restrictive covenants prohibiting leasing violate the federal Fair Housing Act. Rather, this is complex, fact-sensitive analysis that should not be taken to apply to all such covenants.
Reporters Comment: Obviously, the plaintiffs' attorneys in this case did an exceptional job of preparing and presenting their evidence, especially their expert testimony. It will be interesting to see whether the detailed and thoughtful analysis in this case, fact intensive as it may be, is sufficiently persuasive to be followed elsewhere.
Editor Comment 1: The editor is dumbfounded, frankly. Unless we have a federal policy that states that it is unlawful to discriminate on the basis of wealth, the case strikes the editor as wrong. Is it unlawful for Yankee Stadium to charge $40 for a low end baseball ticket because the impact is to exclude racial minorities from regular attendance at their games?
The plaintiffs made a nice little twist of federal anti-discrimination policy, but the editor doubts that the concept will gather traction. He been wrong before, of course.
Editor Comment 2: The case was decided in January and there is no history and no one has cited it.
The Reporter here was Rory O=E2=80=99Bryan of the Indiana Bar.
Items reported here and in the ABA
are for general information purposes only and
should not be relied upon in the course of
representation or in the forming of decisions in
legal matters. The same is true of all
commentary provided by contributors to the DIRT
list. Accuracy of data and opinions expressed
are the sole responsibility of the DIRT editor
and are in no sense the publication of the ABA.
Parties posting messages to DIRT are posting to
source that is readily accessible by members of
the general public, and should take that fact
into account in evaluating confidentiality
DIRT is an internet discussion group for
real estate professionals. Message volume varies,
but commonly runs 5 to 15 messages per work day.
Daily Developments are posted every work day. To
subscribe, send the message
subscribe Dirt [your name]
To cancel your subscription, send the
signoff DIRT to the address:
for information on other commands, send the
Help to the listserv address.
DIRT has an alternate, more extensive coverage
commercial and general real estate matters but also focuses specifically upon
residential real estate matters. Because real estate brokers generally find
this service more valuable, it is named =E2=80=9CBrokerDIRT. But residential
specialist attorneys, title insurers, lenders and others interested in the
residential market will want to subscribe to this alternative list. If you
subscribe to BrokerDIRT, it is not necessary also to subscribe to DIRT, as
BrokerDIRT carries all DIRT traffic in addition to the residential discussions.
To subscribe to BrokerDIRT, send the message
subscribe BrokerDIRT [your name]
To cancel your subscription to BrokerDIRT, send
signoff BrokerDIRT to the address:
DIRT is a service of the American Bar
Section on Real Property, Probate & Trust Law and
the University of Missouri, Kansas City, School
of Law. Daily Developments are copyrighted by
Patrick A. Randolph, Jr., Professor of Law, UMKC
School of Law, but Professor Randolph grants
permission for copying or distribution of Daily
Developments for educational purposes, including
professional continuing education, provided that
no charge is imposed for such distribution and
that appropriate credit is given to Professor
Randolph, DIRT, and its sponsors.
DIRT has a WebPage at:
Your e-mail address will only be used within the ABA and its entities. We do not sell or rent e-mail addresses to anyone outside the ABA.
To change your e-mail address or remove your name from any future general distribution e-mails you can call us at 1-800-285-2221, or write to: American Bar Association, Service Center, 321 N Clark Street, Floor 16, Chicago, IL 60610
If you are an ABA member, log in to the ABA Web site at https://e2k.exchange.umkc.edu/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=3D http://www.abanet.org/abanet/common/MyABA/home.cfm to edit your member profile. Otherwise, complete the form located at https://e2k.exchange.umkc.edu/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=3D https://www.abanet.org/members/join/coa2.html
To review our privacy statement, go to https://e2k.exchange.umkc.edu/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=3D http://www.abanet.org/privacy_statement.html.
If you have any problems, please contact the list