Landlords may be liable for discrimination if they harass or allow their leasing staff, managers, and other agents to harass tenants on the basis of race, etc. Recent cases pose the controversial question of whether landlords can also be liable for the harassment committed by their tenants. The two federal courts that had specifically addressed this issue until now have reached conflicting results. In 2023, another federal court weighed in on the question of tenant-on-tenant liability.

HUD recently charged a Montana landlord and property manager for retaliating against a tenant for exercising her fair housing rights. The retaliatory behavior included coercion, intimidation, threats, or interference in violation of Section 818 of the Fair Housing Act. The Fair Housing Act prohibits retaliating against anyone for exercising their fair housing rights, as well as coercing, intimidating, threatening, or interfering with someone’s exercise of those rights.

Question  A:  We have a Tenant who has refused to fix the water leaks within their mobile home. The park owner pays for the water and there have been significant cost increases due to the leaks. 

The Lease is the MHCO Lease from 2003 and states under Tenant Agreements F. Maintain the Home in accordance with conditions set forth in Paragraph 12.A(8)(a) through (e) which states in (d) all electrical, water, storm water drainage and sewage disposal systems in, on, or about the Home, are in operable and safe condition, and that the connections to those systems have been maintained.

What recourse do we have in this situation?

Question B:  We have a tenant whose sewage line is routinely blocked.  We have had a plumber our numerous times and unclogged resident’s sewage line.  We have repeatedly told this resident that they cannot put certain items in the toilet - and yet they continue to do so and block the sewage line.  Does this constitute grounds for eviction?  At what point is the resident responsible for the sewage line and the items they are putting in the toilet?

Continuing previous patterns, most of the 2023 cases alleged discrimination on the basis of disability; most of the disability discrimination claims alleged failure to make reasonable accommodations, specifically with regard to assistance animals. Explanation: The FHA requires landlords to make reasonable accommodations “necessary to afford a person with a disability the equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.” Waiving a no-pets rule so that a disabled rental applicant or tenant can keep an assistance animal is the classic example of a reasonable accommodation.

But allowing a tenant to keep an assistance animal is only one issue; it’s also important to understand the rules that apply after that. Landlords have the right to hold tenants responsible for ensuring that their assistance animals obey safety, sanitation, noise, property, and other community rules. However, they may not impose unreasonable restrictions.

Situation: A Philadelphia apartment community makes allowances to its longstanding no-pets policy for assistance animals, as long as tenants meet certain strict rules:

• Assistance animals are allowed only in freight and not passenger elevators;
• Assistance animals must wear a bark-suppressing collar at all times;
• Tenants must pay deposits on their assistance animals and maintain $1 million in insurance naming the landlord as a beneficiary; and
• Tenants guilty of more than three violations forfeit their rights to keep their assistance animal.

A tenant who owns an assistance animal sued the landlord, seeking punitive damages for disability discrimination.

In determining whether a landlord has committed discrimination, HUD, fair housing groups, and courts consider not only what policies say but how they’re actually enforced. Rental policies or restrictions that appear neutral on their face will constitute discrimination to the extent they’re selectively enforced based on race, etc. An Idaho landlord learned this lesson the hard way.

Possessing a criminal record isn’t a protected class under the FHA. However, statistics show that a disproportionate number of African Americans are arrested and incarcerated in the U.S., as compared to white persons. As a result, a rental policy of excluding any person with a criminal record may constitute what’s called “disparate impact” discrimination against African Americans and nationalities with disproportionately high arrest and prosecution numbers. Six of the 84 cases in this year’s Scorecard included allegations of FHA discrimination on the basis of criminal record. Criminal record discrimination may also be banned under state or local fair housing laws.

Trees, Limbs and Roots – Liability Issues

Question:  .  What is the landlord’s responsibility when it comes to trees falling on a tenant’s house. Does it make a difference if it is a hazard tree vs. not a hazard tree? What about roots crossing over a space and causing damage to the home on the tenant’s space or the neighbor’s space? What about tree damage that is weather related?