Dyan Hunt v. Aimco Properties, L.P.
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 2788
11th Cir.2016Background
- Dyan Hunt and her adult son Karl (born with Down Syndrome) lived at the Reflections apartment complex; Aimco owned/managed the complex during the incidents in Aug–Sept 2012.
- Staff reported that Karl made statements perceived as threats (later explained by Dyan as descriptions of a cartoon); Aimco involved law enforcement and served notices related to lease nonrenewal and noncompliance.
- Aimco issued a Seven Day Notice of Noncompliance and a Notice of Non‑Renewal, prompting the Hunts to prepare to move; after the complex was sold, the new owner allowed the Hunts to remain.
- The Hunts sued under the Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)) alleging: making a dwelling unavailable (§ 3604(f)(1)); discrimination in terms/conditions (§ 3604(f)(2)); and failure to reasonably accommodate (§ 3604(f)(3)).
- The district court dismissed all claims under Rule 12(b)(6); the Eleventh Circuit reversed and remanded, finding the complaint plausibly alleged each FHA theory and that dismissal was erroneous.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the complaint plausibly alleges Aimco "made unavailable" a dwelling in violation of §3604(f)(1) | Aimco refused to renew the Hunts’ lease and initiated eviction because of Karl’s disability, making housing unavailable even though later the new owner allowed them to stay | Aimco argued no eviction occurred and housing ultimately remained available, so no §3604(f)(1) injury | Reversed: complaint alleged sufficient facts that Aimco made the dwelling unavailable because of Karl’s disability; later-corrective events do not erase prior discriminatory conduct (pleading survives MTD) |
| Whether the complaint states a §3604(f)(2) claim for discriminatory terms/conditions | Aimco imposed unequal conditions (yelling, forced maintenance work, barring Karl from common areas) because of his disability | Aimco contended police — not Aimco — barred Karl from areas, negating its liability | Reversed: pleaded facts permit inference Aimco caused or used law enforcement to restrict Karl’s access; disparate-terms claim survives; direct-threat defense is an affirmative defense not resolved at MTD stage |
| Whether Hunts adequately alleged a failure-to-reasonably-accommodate claim under §3604(f)(3) | Dyan requested accommodation (finding day care/offsite placement) and asked Aimco to allow them to remain while she arranged care; Aimco refused to consider alternatives | Aimco argued no proper/requested accommodation was made or that plaintiff failed to make the requisite request | Reversed: court held the complaint sufficiently alleged a request for accommodation (notice of disability and desire for accommodation; no magic words required) and alleged refusal to accommodate |
| Mootness: whether case is moot because Hunts were ultimately allowed to stay | Hunts sought money damages in addition to injunctive relief; damages claim keeps controversy live | Aimco did not assert mootness on appeal | Not moot: damages claim preserves a live controversy despite subsequent allowance to remain |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonald v. Verble, 622 F.2d 1227 (6th Cir.) (prior discriminatory refusal that is later remedied by others does not erase liability or damages)
- Schwarz v. City of Treasure Island, 544 F.3d 1201 (11th Cir. 2008) (FHA to be given broad and inclusive interpretation; ADA/Rehab Act precedents informative)
- Bhogaita v. Altamonte Heights Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 765 F.3d 1277 (11th Cir.) (elements for FHA reasonable‑accommodation claim)
- Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506 (2002) (pleading standards for discrimination claims; avoid transposing prima facie case into rigid pleading requirement)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (complaint must contain factual content permitting reasonable inference of liability)