Legal Argument
Landlords owe a duty of care to tenants and their guests to maintain the premises in reasonably safe conditions away from threats including threat to privacy.
Under federal law, disabled tenants and prospective tenants with a disability have the right to apply for and live in a rental unit regardless of their impairment. When a landlord rejects disabled tenants based on the use of a discriminatory housing practice, they have violated the law.
Fair Housing Acts
The federal Fair Housing Act and the Fair Housing Amendments Act (42 U.S. Code §§ 3601-3619, 3631) forbid discrimination of tenants or prospective tenants because of a disability or the disability of a person associated with them. The law protects the following people:
- A person with a mental or physical disability that substantially limits a person’s ability to perform one or more major life activities; or
- A person that has a record of the disability; or
- A person that is considered by others as having the disability
Types of protected disabilities include mobile, visual, and hearing impairments, mental retardation, alcoholism (if being treated in a recovery program), drug addiction (not caused by the use of an illegal controlled substance), mental illness, and HIV/AIDS.
When a property owner agrees to rent the property to others, a landlord-tenant relationship is created. This relationship is governed by the terms of the lease agreed to between the parties, as well as state and common law obligations which apply to all leases. Over and above the terms of the lease, the law also implies a warranty from landlord to tenant which guarantees that the premises will remain habitable throughout the tenancy. This implied warranty of habitability is materially breached when defects left unrepaired by the landlord affect the health and safety of the tenant, such as inadequate plumbing, heat, or water supply.
The law generally views a lease as creating dependent covenants. So, a landlord’s violation of his duties, including breach of the warranty of habitability, may release the tenant from his own responsibilities under the lease, without the expense of a lawsuit as demonstrated in the case of Pines v. Perssion. As such, a tenant whose rights under the lease have been violated may unilaterally terminate the agreement, though the law grants the tenant alternative remedies should he prefer to remain in the rental property despite the landlord’s breach.
Termination
If the landlord breaches his duties, one option available to the tenant is to terminate the agreement. Should the tenant choose termination, she may stop paying rent, and vacate the property within a reasonable period of time. Generally, to terminate a lease on the grounds of a breach, the tenant must serve written notice on the landlord, specify the conditions that represent material noncompliance, demand the correction of the conditions within a specified period of time and inform the landlord of the date that the lease will terminate if the conditions are not corrected.
At that point, if the conditions are not remedied, the tenant’s obligation to pay rent ceases, and the tenant must leave the property. Note that terminating the lease does not bar the tenant from seeking damages for harms caused by the landlord’s breach.
Courts have also recognized that tenants living in a dwelling with defects substantial enough to breach the warranty of habitability, often suffer a high degree of discomfort and annoyance. As such, some courts have ruled that these tenants may sue to recover damages for emotional distress, over and above the other damages suffered as demonstrated in the case of Hilder v. St. Peter.
Retaliatory Eviction (In your case, after you reported on taking of pictures and the harassment on grounds of disability, your mother was evicted) If this part is not relevant to your case, kindly ignore)
If a tenant who has previously reported housing code violations faces eviction by a landlord and can show that the motive behind the eviction was retaliation for reporting the violations, the tenant can claim a defense of retaliatory eviction. The defense may extend to cases in which a landlord refuses to renew a lease in retaliation for a tenant’s reporting of violation, even when the landlord would be fully within her rights not to renew the lease for any reason she chooses.
For example, a tenant who enjoys a month to month lease normally may face non-renewal of a lease after 30 days-notice, and eviction proceedings if the tenant remains on the premises thereafter. Under normal circumstances, the landlord can choose not to renew and subsequently to evict for any reason. However, if the tenant can show the reason was retaliatory, this may serve as a defense against eviction.
Retaliatory eviction can also serve as a defense against retaliation by means of a rent increase. If a landlord raises a tenant’s rent in response to the tenant reporting housing code violations, and then seeks to evict the tenant for failing to pay the increased rent, the tenant can defend against eviction by demonstrating the retaliatory nature of the landlord’s actions
Housing Discrimination Laws
Since a lease is a private agreement between two parties, a property owner may generally choose which tenant he or she prefers to rent a property to, for whatever reason the owner wishes. However, federal law prohibits discrimination in housing if the owner decides not to rent to an otherwise qualified tenant, if the decision is based on discrimination against certain protected classes.
Specifically, it is illegal to refuse to rent or sell property on the basis of the race, color, religion, sex, disability or national origin of the potential tenant or buyer.Similarly, the law also prohibits discrimination in housing against families with children and the handicapped. In addition to the prohibition on discrimination in renting or selling property, it is illegal to advertise discriminatory preferences for housing on offer.
To prove a violation of federal housing discrimination law, the plaintiff must show that he is a member of a protected class, and that despite being qualified, he was denied the opportunity to rent or buy property which remained available for others. If the plaintiff can demonstrate these elements, the burden is on the defendant to show that the refusal to rent or sell was motivated by reasons other than discrimination.
If the plaintiff is successful in demonstrating discrimination, the defendant may face civil fines, and the court may award the plaintiff actual and punitive damages and enjoin the defendant from renting the property to individuals other than the plaintiff.
REFERENCES
[1] Abbott, Housing Policy, Housing Codes and Tenant Remedies: An Integration, 56 B.U. L. REV. 1 (1976).
[2] See Pines v. Perssion, 14 Wis. 2d 590, 111 N.W.2d 409, 111 N.W. 409 (1961).
[3] Hilder v. St. Peter, 478 A.2d 202, 144 Vt. 150 (1984).
[4] Schweiger v. Superior Court, 476 P.2d 97, 3 Cal. 3d 507, 90 Cal. Rptr. 729 (1970).
[5] Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3604.
[6] 42 U.S.C. §§ 3604(c).
[7] Soules v. US Dept. of Housing & Urban Dev., 967 F.2d 817 (2d Cir. 1992).
[8] 42 U.S.C. §§ 3612.
At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )