140 So. 3d 253
La. Ct. App.2014Background
- Elena Mazzini, owner, leased to Karen Strathman; lease prohibits dogs without prior written permission.
- Strathman resided with a dog; eviction filed February 4, 2013 for lease violation.
- Lease provides a blanket pet prohibition with mutual written agreement to allow pets.
- Strathman asserted FHA/ADA disability defenses and emotional support animal; attached social worker letter.
- Trial court excluded the letter as hearsay; eviction judgment entered for Mazzini.
- Appellant timely appealed; attorney fees awarded to prevailing landlord under the lease; counsel later withdrew.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of the Prescription Affidavit | Strathman argues the affidavit is admissible evidence of disability. | Mazzini contends the affidavit is hearsay and improperly excluded. | Affidavit excluded; appellant failed to proffer; issue preserved for appeal denied. |
| Whether Strathman proved a disability under FHA/ADA | Strathman claims disability (anxiety/allergies) requiring accommodation. | Mazzini argues no proven disability; landlord not required to accommodate. | Trial court correctly found no disability proven; no substantial limit shown. |
| Need for accommodation vs. contract enforcement | Disability statute requires reasonable accommodation of emotional support animals. | Lease terms control; no basis to modify without law-based exception. | Lease must be enforced as written; no obligation to accommodate. |
| Attorney fees under the lease clause | Landlord seeks attorney fees per lease provision. | Fees excessive or inappropriate under contract. | Fee award limited to 25% of amount claimed or $300, whichever is greater; there is an award of $300. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ritter v. Exxon Mobile Corp., 20 So.3d 540 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2009) (proffer rules and admissibility where evidence not properly offered)
- Denoux v. Vessel Management Services, Inc., 983 So.2d 84 (La.1986) (evidence not officially offered cannot be considered)
- Beaumont v. Exxon Corp., 868 So.2d 976 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2004) (disability requires actual impairment plus impact on major life activity)
- Bragdon v. Abbott, 524 U.S. 624 (U.S. 1998) (definition of disability and major life activities under ADA)
- Toyota Motor Mfg., Kentucky, Inc., v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184 (U.S. 2002) (substantially limits standard for disability determinations)
- Giebeler v. M & B Associates, 343 F.3d 1143 (9th Cir. 2003) (interpretation of disability under FHA/ADA)