Areas of Service - Housing Rights
Multifamily Affordable Housing Preservation Project
Multifamily, affordable rental housing units represent a unique and important part of providing affordable housing, especially for extremely low income families. The affordability restrictions that were placed on such units have begun to expire and in some cases have been terminated early by the owner of the property or the federal government. Most recently, the economic crisis has increased the need for affordable housing, yet has resulted in a number of foreclosures of multifamily, affordable housing properties. These lost units are difficult, if not impossible, to replace. With its regional partners, SLC is working to preserve affordable, multifamily housing units using community education and outreach, policy advocacy, and systemic litigation to preserve affordable, multifamily housing.
Roundtree et al. v. U.S. Hous. & Urban Devel. et al., Case No. 5:09-cv-00234-WTH-GRJ
(M.D. Fla., J. Hodges).
SLC co-counseled this case with Florida Institutional Legal Services and Community Legal Services of Mid Florida on behalf of three residents of Marion Manor, a project-based Section 8 apartment complex located in Ocala. Marion Manor is a privately-owned 100-unit apartment complex that provided housing to low-income residents, about 90 percent of whom were African-American. Marion Manor had been providing affordable housing to tenants with low or no income for over 20 years. HUD notified the tenants of Marion Manor that it intended to terminate funding pursuant to the Housing Assistance Payment (HAP) Contract for Marion Manor. Plaintiffs’ counsel met with HUD administrators, but HUD was not willing to postpone terminating funding while Plaintiffs’ counsel identified a buyer for the property. Plaintiffs filed an Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction, which was granted by the Court. The Court found that HUD failed to inform the Plaintiffs about the complex’s lack of compliance with the HAP contract’s regulation on safe living conditions and did not allow the tenants the opportunity to voice their concerns even though they had a property interest in their tenancy. While the units were not ultimately able to be preserved because a new owner could not be identified, the preliminary injunction resulted in the tenants of Marion Manor having a voice in the process. As a result of the preliminary injunction, HUD held a meeting where 127 tenants attended and voiced their concerns about Marion Manor and whether they wished to remain at Marion Manor or receive a voucher to relocate elsewhere.
Civil Rights
Grayden, et al., v. City of Orlando, et al., Case No. 6:00-cv-888-Orl-22B (M.D. Fla., J. Conway).
This case involved the City of Orlando’s condemnation of the Lafayette Square Apartments, which housed approximately 250 low and moderate income tenants, most of whom are African-American. The City of Orlando inspected the complex and issued an emergency condemnation order. The tenants were told to be out of the complex by the end of the day. None were told of their right to a hearing to contest the condemnation and eviction orders. They were either required on very short notice to find alternative housing or forced into homeless shelters. The Court ruled that the City’s condemnation procedures violated due process and that plaintiffs are entitled to permanent injunctive relief to change the procedures. The parties agreed to various changes to the City ordinance that will provide sufficient due process in the future.
Houston v. City of Cocoa, Case No. 89-082-Civ-Orl-19 (M.D. Fla., J. Fawsett)
This class action was originally brought by Central Florida Legal Services (CFLS), and transferred to SLC in 1996. It involves the preservation of a historically African-American neighborhood. It appears now that the City and our clients have the same basic goal of fostering more affordable single family housing in the neighborhood. However, the neighborhood still suffers from "benign neglect" from the City and downtown redevelopment continues to pose a threat of commercial intrusion into this residential area. We will continue to monitor the City's compliance with the terms of the consent decree.
Knight v. Housing Authority of City of Sanford, Case No. 97-1225-CV-Orl-19B (M.D. Fla., J. Fawsett)
Co-counseled with Central Florida Legal Services in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against the Sanford Housing Authority (SHA). The suit sought system-wide declaratory and injunctive relief challenging a wide array of SHA policies that either violated governing federal regulations (such as prohibiting public housing lease clauses that waive a tenant’s right to a jury trial) or the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. In response to a partially successful preliminary injunction, the SHA promulgated an entire new lease in February 1998 in an effort to bring their rental agreements into compliance with federal law. We filed a supplemental complaint that addressed violations in the newly promulgated SHA lease. The court granted summary judgment to plaintiffs on the constitutional claims, dismissed for lack of standing on some of the regulatory claims, and denied on the merits plaintiffs’ claim regarding jury trial rights. On reconsideration, the Court granted summary judgment in our favor on the jury trial issue.
Discrimination
Arnao v. Landmark Residential et al., Case No. 8:09-cv-633-JDW-MAP (M.D. Fla., J. Whittemore).
SLC filed this race discrimination lawsuit under the Federal Fair Housing Act, Section 1981 and Section 1982 on behalf of Plaintiff Antoinette Arnao. Ms. Arnao, who is African American, went to Courtyard by the River to inquire about leasing an apartment. Landmark Residential is the leasing company for the property. The leasing agent gave her a tour of a unit and a leasing application. She misplaced her application and returned to Courtyard by the River with a friend, who is African American, a few days later. Another leasing agent was on duty and refused to give Arnao another application or to give her a tour of a unit, citing Arnao’s self-reported bad credit. However, a few days later, another friend of Arnao’s, who is white, visited the Courtyard and despite the white friend’s self-reported bad credit, the leasing agent gave her a tour of a unit and a leasing application. A settlement agreement provided damages to Arnao.
Henry, et al., v. National Hous. Partnership, as Gen’l Partner of Kennedy Homes Ltd. Partnership, et al., Case No.: 1:06-CV-008-SPM (N.D. Fla., J. Mickle)
We co-counseled with TRLS regarding the closure of Kennedy Homes, a federally subsidized multi-family housing complex for low and extremely low income families. The complex was poorly maintained and, after an October 2003 fire caused by leaking gas lines, was closed due to unsafe conditions. All residents were forced to relocate. Many of the tenants were unable to afford the increased costs of replacement housing. This litigation sought to hold the private owner of Kennedy Homes and its parent Corporation AIMCO (the largest owner of privately held low income housing in the nation) responsible for the failure to maintain the complex that led to its closure. The complaint was on behalf of 35 former residents and included claims for Housing Act race discrimination, Section 1981 race discrimination, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and a few other breach claims. A confidential mediatied settlement was reached.
Hernando 515 v. Simmons, Case No.: 2000-3052-CA (Fla. 5th Cir. Ct.).
We defended a tenant, who is mentally ill, in an eviction action filed by the owner of a privately owned, but federally subsidized, housing complex for the elderly and persons with disabilities. The tenant’s sole source of income is his Social Security disability payment, and he pays $102 per month for rent. If evicted, it is unlikely he will be able to find any other housing in the area. The owner filed an eviction action in state court alleging lease violations for behaviors that were directly related to his mental illness. We requested, as a “reasonable accommodation” under the Fair Housing Act, that the owner suspend the eviction to allow time for our client to seek and receive additional treatment for his mental illness. The apartment complex management did not respond to this request. We settled the case for $10,000 and dismissal of the eviction action against our client.