Jacob Scoggins v. Lee's Crossing Homeowners Ass'n
718 F.3d 262
| 4th Cir. | 2013Background
- Plaintiffs Dan and Debbie Scoggins and their wheelchair-using son Jacob reside in Lee’s Crossing HOA in Virginia, subject to covenants and an Architectural Review Board.
- HOA covenants ban off-road vehicles on common roads; plaintiffs seek an exception to permit Jacob to use an ATV for mobility within the community and seek a ramp modification at their front door.
- Plaintiffs filed FHAA claims after the HOA allegedly denied/failed to act on their ramp and ATV requests; district court granted summary judgment to HOA on both claims but denied fees to defendants.
- Ramp request: first written in 2010; HOA responded in 2010 stating incomplete application and requested additional information; plaintiffs pursued litigation before completing the application.
- ATV request: written May 2009; HOA board tabled twice and delayed action for over 15 months, then treated as a constructive denial; court analyzes reasonableness under FHAA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ripeness of ramp modification claim | Scoggins claim ripe due to actual/constructive denial. | Claim premature; action pending completion of application. | Ramp claim not ripe; remanded to dismiss without prejudice. |
| ATV accommodation reasonable under FHAA | ATV would provide necessary mobility for Jacob. | ATV use poses safety risks; not reasonable. | ATV request denied as not reasonable. |
| Attorneys’ fees and costs | Defendants seek fees under covenants and FHAA; Christiansburg standard applies. | Prevailing-defendant fees allowed; covenant provision should enforce fees. | District court did not abuse discretion; no fee award under Christiansburg; covenant provision not enforceable to override FHAA policy. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bryant Woods Inn., Inc. v. Howard Cnty., Md., 124 F.3d 602 (4th Cir. 1997) (tests whether an accommodation is reasonable and necessary under FHAA)
- Dadian v. Village of Wilmette, 269 F.3d 831 (7th Cir. 2001) (safety concerns can justify denying a modification)
- Groome Res. Ltd. v. Parish of Jefferson, 234 F.3d 192 (5th Cir. 2000) (denial of accommodation may be either actual or constructive)
- Christianburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412 (Supreme Court 1978) (frivolous/groundless standard for fee shifting in civil rights suits)
- Bryant Woods Inn., Inc. v. Howard Cnty., Md., 124 F.3d 602 (4th Cir. 1997) (FHAA standard for reasonableness and necessity of accommodations)
- Taylor v. Harbour Pointe H.O.A., 690 F.3d 44 (2d Cir. 2012) (Christiansburg standard applied to FHAA fee awards)
- Miller v. Brown, 462 F.3d 312 (4th Cir. 2006) (ripeness and continuing violation considerations)
- Howard v. City of Beavercreek, 108 F. Supp. 2d 866 (S.D. Ohio 2000) (safety-related restrictions in FHAA accommodations)
- NAT’l Advertising Co. v. City of Raleigh, 947 F.2d 1158 (4th Cir. 1991) (continuing violation doctrine limitations)
- Williams v. Giant Food Inc., 370 F.3d 423 (4th Cir. 2004) (objective corroboration standard for FHAA evidence)