Balvage v. RYDERWOOD IMPROVEMENT AND SERVICE ASS'N
642 F.3d 765
9th Cir.2011Background
- Ryderwood is a retirement community in Washington established in 1953 with age-restricted bylaw amendments since 1975.
- Ryderwood Improvement and Service Association (RISA) enforces 55+ residency and ownership rules; plaintiffs are residents aged 54 seeking to challenge the restrictions.
- FHA, as amended by FHAA and HOPA, provides a 55+ exemption (HOPA) requiring 80% occupancy by at least one 55+ resident, policies demonstrating intent, and occupancy verification via reliable surveys/affidavits.
- HUD issued 1999 regulations implementing HOPA occupancy verification; transition period ended May 3, 2000, during which unoccupied units could be reserved for older residents.
- HUD's 2006 guidance stated that after transition, communities could convert to housing for older persons only by complying fully with all requirements and without discriminating against families with children.
- Between 2000 and 2006, RISA did not conduct formal surveys; it relied on informal verification methods (rolodex, phone lists, membership forms) to claim 80% occupancy, which the court found insufficient.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether RISA qualifies for the HOPA exemption post-transition | RISA cannot rely on past discrimination; needs current compliance. | RISA continuously operated as 55+ and may rely on current compliance to qualify. | Yes, if current compliance satisfies all three HOPA requirements. |
| Whether pre-transition discrimination bars eligibility for HOPA exemption in later periods | Any discriminatory conduct before compliance cannot be cured by later compliance. | Past conduct does not preclude exemption if current requirements are met. | Past discrimination does not defeat prospective exemption; current compliance matters. |
| Whether September 2007 verification survey satisfies HOPA's verification requirement | Survey failed to cover all units or provide reliable documentation for pre-2007 period. | Survey can validate occupancy and satisfy the 80% threshold. | The district court erred in rejecting the 2007 survey; on remand, the sufficiency of the survey must be evaluated. |
| Whether HUD's 2006 policy guidance governs RISA's eligibility | Guidance prohibits converting without non-discriminatory methods; binds district court. | Guidance addressed converting after transition; does not foreclose prospective exemption for continuously 55+ communities. | HUD 2006 guidance does not bar prospective exemption for a community with continuous 55+ operation; proper standard is current compliance. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Hayward, 36 F.3d 832 (9th Cir. 1994) (exemption must be narrowly construed; three requirements must be satisfied)
- Meyer v. Holley, 537 U.S. 280 (S. Ct. 2003) (defers to agency interpretations of regulations in some contexts)
- Barrientos v. 1801-1825 Morton LLC, 583 F.3d 1197 (9th Cir. 2009) (agency interpretations receive deferential treatment in regulatory interpretations)
- Fed. Express Corp. v. Holowecki, 552 U.S. 389 (U.S. 2008) (Skidmore-level deference for agency litigation positions)
- Hayward, United States v., 36 F.3d 832 (9th Cir. 1994) (exemption construction and timing considerations for HOPA)