Balvage v. Ryderwood Improvement & Service Ass'n
642 F.3d 765
9th Cir.2011Background
- FHA amendments created housing for older persons exemptions, including the 55+ exemption (HOPA).
- HOPA requires three criteria: 80% occupancy by at least one 55+, policies demonstrating intent to be 55+, and HUD verification of occupancy via reliable surveys/affidavits.
- HUD issued 1999 regulations implementing the verification requirement and a transition period ending May 3, 2000.
- Ryderwood, a 270-unit retirement community in Washington, restricted ownership/residence to those 55+, via 1975 bylaw by RISA.
- Plaintiffs allege Ryderwood’s age restrictions violate the FHA and that RISA never satisfied HOPA’s requirements.
- District court granted partial summary judgment to plaintiffs; RISA appealed seeking to rely on HOPA exemption prospectively.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a community may rely on HOPA exemption with current compliance despite prior discrimination. | RISA cannot retroactively exempt if discrimination occurred before current compliance. | Ryderwood may qualify if it currently meets all three HOPA criteria, even with prior discrimination. | Yes, current compliance suffices; past discrimination does not bar prospective exemption. |
| Whether pre-2007 verification efforts satisfy HOPA’s 80% occupancy verification. | Surveyed as of 2007 should count retroactively. | Pre-2007 efforts (rolodex, membership forms) do not meet biennial verification with reliable documents. | Pre-2007 efforts did not satisfy verification; district court正确 era. |
| Whether the 2007 survey, if valid, satisfies the verification requirement for exemption. | September 2007 survey could establish compliance. | Only if it was conducted in accordance with §100.307 and covered all units. | Remand to determine whether September 2007 survey complies. |
| Whether HUD’s 2006 guidance controls the outcome. | Guidance limits exemption to periods with non-discriminatory conversion. | Guidance does not govern prospective eligibility for communities continuously operating as 55+. | HUD’s 2006 guidance does not bar current exemption when current criteria are met. |
| Whether the district court erred in requiring conversion without discrimination. | Conversion to exempt status required without discrimination. | Conversion allowed if in compliance post-transition, without discriminatory conduct. | District court erred in denying exemption prospectively; proceed on remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. City of Hayward, 36 F.3d 832 (9th Cir. 1994) (exemptions construed narrowly; three requirements must be met)
- Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (U.S. 1997) (agency interpretations afforded deference under Auer)
- Barrientos v. 1801-1825 Morton LLC, 583 F.3d 1197 (9th Cir. 2009) (agency interpretations entitled to deference; Skidmore consideration)
- Fed. Express Corp. v. Holowecki, 552 U.S. 389 (U.S. 2008) (explaination of deference standards)