Kuhn ex rel. Khun v. McNary Estates Homeowners Ass'n
228 F. Supp. 3d 1142
D. Or.2017Background
- Khrizma Kuhn is severely disabled (low IQ, nonverbal, wheelchair user, severe incontinence, needs to lie down due to scoliosis); her parents lived with and cared for her.
- Plaintiffs (Renee and Gary Kuhn) requested an HOA accommodation to park a Class C motorhome (RV) in their driveway because it contains a toilet and shower and provides space for Khrizma to lie down during outings.
- HOA denied the request after delays and mediation offers; HOA cited that the accommodation related to transportation not the home and raised safety/visibility concerns about the RV protruding into the street.
- Plaintiffs produced medical letters linking Khrizma’s disabilities to the need for a motorhome parked at the residence, driveway measurements and photos showing the RV would fit, and offered mitigations (parabolic mirror) for sight-line concerns.
- The HOA eventually denied the request; plaintiffs sold and moved. Plaintiffs sued under the federal Fair Housing Amendments Act (FHAA) and Oregon law for failure to provide a reasonable accommodation; cross-motions for partial summary judgment followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the requested parking variance (park Class C RV in driveway) was "necessary" under the FHAA to afford equal opportunity to use/enjoy the dwelling | The RV was medically necessary for Khrizma to have toilet/shower access and room to lie down; offsite parking or a van would not meet needs; medical evidence creates nexus and shows "but for" denial plaintiffs would be denied equal opportunity | HOA argued alternative accommodations existed (offsite parking, van with chemical toilet) and later raised garage expansion or buying a smaller RV; thus the Class C RV was not necessary | Court: Granted summary judgment for plaintiffs — medical evidence and record show the accommodation may be necessary; alternatives proposed by HOA were either inadequate or raised only after denial and are irrelevant/waived |
| Whether the requested accommodation was "reasonable" (safety/direct threat) | Plaintiffs documented that RV fits within driveway, offered installation of a parabolic mirror to mitigate sight-line issues, and showed low-traffic dead-end street; thus accommodation is reasonable | HOA pointed to a neighbor’s declaration of a near-accident and argued the RV created a safety hazard that could make the accommodation unreasonable or a direct threat | Court: Granted summary judgment for plaintiffs — HOA failed to present reliable objective evidence of a direct threat or to show the mirror would not mitigate the risk; plaintiffs met burden and defendants did not rebut |
Key Cases Cited
- Giebeler v. M & B Assocs., 343 F.3d 1143 (9th Cir. 2003) (allocates initial burden to plaintiff to show necessity and reasonableness of accommodation; then shifts to defendant)
- United States v. Cal. Mobile Home Park Mgmt. Co., 107 F.3d 1374 (9th Cir. 1997) (recognizes that lack of nearby parking can diminish disabled person’s use and enjoyment of dwelling)
- Dadian v. Vill. of Wilmette, 269 F.3d 831 (7th Cir. 2001) (necessity standard: accommodation that ameliorates disability effects and enhances quality of life may be necessary)
- Cimarron Foothills Cmty. Ass’n v. Kippen, 206 Ariz. 455, 79 P.3d 1214 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003) (Denial of RV parking accommodation; court’s reasoning discussed and distinguished by this opinion)
- Alboniga v. Sch. Bd. of Broward Cnty. Fla., 87 F. Supp. 3d 1319 (S.D. Fla. 2015) (supports principle that housing provider cannot unilaterally impose alternative accommodations when requested accommodation is reasonable)