Page 1
Ninth Circuit:
City/Lessor Had No Duty to Accommodate Man With Disability Who Paid No Rent
By a MetNews Staff Writer
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday affirmed a summary judgment in favor of the City of Santa Monica in an action brought by a man whose spinal condition rendered walking painful but was denied permission to park his automobile next to his mobile home, situated in a city mobile home park, but where he had no lease on the space and the city had not accepted rent from him.
Senior Circuit Judge Carlos Bea wrote for a three-judge panel in saying that the city had no duty under the federal Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 (“FHAA”) to accommodate plaintiff Lawrence Salisbury’s disability.
Salisbury’s father had occupied Space 57 in the Mountain View Mobile Home Park from 1974 until his death in 2013, and had paid rent pursuant the terms of his lease. The city owned the park, reserved for low-income mobile home dwellers, from 2000 until 2018.
Just how long Salisbury had lived in the mobile home was in doubt, but a question as to the lawfulness of his presence arose in 2011.
He filled out an application for tenancy which was rejected as incomplete and he never filled out another one.
His action in Los Angeles Superior Court to block eviction wound up being dismissed on procedural grounds.
Provisions of FHAA
Salisbury brought suit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California under the FHAA. That act renders it unlawful makes “[t]o discriminate in the sale or rental, or to otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any buyer or renter because of a handicap” or “[t]o discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection with such dwelling, because of a handicap.”
In an opinion affirming a judgment by Superior Court Judge Cormac J. Carney, Bea wrote:
“This case…presents a threshold question of first impression in this circuit: Whether the FHAA applies at all to claims by plaintiffs who never themselves or through an associate entered into a lease or paid rent to the defendant landlord. The district court found the FHAA presupposed the existence of a valid tenancy as a necessary precondition to applying the statute’s duty of reasonable accommodation and determined Salisbury failed to establish an express or implied landlord-tenant relationship under California law.”
Different Basis
He continued:
“We agree with the district court that Salisbury’s claim falls outside the FHAA’s domain, but for a different, yet allied reason. We hold that, as to occupants requesting accommodation, the FHAA’s disability discrimination provisions apply only to cases involving a ‘sale’ or ‘rental’ for which the landlord accepted consideration in exchange for granting the right to occupy the premises.”
The judge said, quoting the act, with italics added:
“The relevant operative language of the FHAA bars discrimination “in the sale or rental” of a dwelling, “in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling,” and “in the provision of services or facilities in connection with such dwelling.”
The act applies to a “rental,” he reasoned, only of some consideration is proffered, noting:
“The most common form of consideration for a lease is periodic rent.”
The parties had briefed the question of whether it was reasonable to deny Salisbury a parking space close to the mobile home. That doesn’t matter, Bea said, because the City was not obligated to make any accommodations absent its acceptance of consideration from Salisbury in exchange for the right to occupy Spot 57.”
The case is Salisbury v. City of Santa Monica, No. 20-55039.
Frances M. Campbell and Nima Farahani of the Sherman Oaks firm of Campbell & Farahani LLP represented Salisbury. Santa Monica Deputy City Attorney Michelle M. Hugard acted for the city.
Copyright 2021, Metropolitan News Company