945 F.3d 483
6th Cir.2019Background
- Plaintiff Phyllis Davis, an asthma and chemical-sensitivity sufferer, lived in Echo Valley Condominiums, whose bylaws historically permitted in-unit smoking.
- Davis alleged smoke from neighbors’ units (notably tenants of the Lamnins) infiltrated her unit and common areas and aggravated her asthma.
- She complained to the condo board and manager; the board sent a letter to the Lamnins and paid to install a $275 fresh-air system in Davis’s unit; tenants later moved out and the Lamnins sold.
- Davis sued the Association and its property manager under the Fair Housing Amendments Act (requesting a buildingwide smoking ban as a reasonable accommodation), and asserted state-law claims for breach of condo covenants and nuisance.
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendants, holding the requested smoking ban was not a reasonable accommodation, and rejecting the breach-of-covenant and nuisance claims; the Sixth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a buildingwide smoking ban is a "reasonable accommodation" under the Fair Housing Amendments Act | Davis: ban is necessary to accommodate her disability and equal use of her dwelling | Association: ban would be a fundamental alteration of a lawful policy and would unduly burden/restrict third-party owners | Ban is not a reasonable accommodation; it is a fundamental change and improperly sacrifices third-party rights |
| Whether bylaws requiring units be "safe, clean, and sanitary" or forbidding "unlawful or offensive" activity require banning smoking (including marijuana) | Davis: smoke is unsanitary, unsafe, offensive or unlawful (marijuana) and thus breaches covenants | Defendants: bylaws do not specifically prohibit smoking; long-standing practice and context permit in-unit smoking; plaintiff failed to plead new theories | Claims fail: bylaws construed against enforcement; plaintiff did not plead/seek amendment properly for unlawful/offensive theory |
| Whether smoke constitutes an actionable annoyance/nuisance under the covenants | Davis: smoke unreasonably interferes with enjoyment and is a nuisance | Defendants: in a community that permits smoking, ordinary smoke is expected; board took remedial steps; nuisance is objective not purely subjective | No genuine issue that board breached nuisance bylaw; smoking in a smoke-permitted complex generally not a nuisance |
| Whether Association/manager are liable in tort for nuisance caused by owners | Davis: Association had contractual duty to enforce bylaws and so can be liable | Defendants: condominium association lacks possession/control of owners’ units and thus cannot be held liable like a landlord | No tort liability; association lacked possession/control and no contract breach was shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Se. Cmty. Coll. v. Davis, 442 U.S. 397 (1979) (distinguishes reasonable accommodations from fundamental alterations)
- Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S. 287 (1985) (scope of “reasonable accommodation” in disability statutes)
- Cinnamon Hills Youth Crisis Ctr. v. St. George City, 685 F.3d 917 (10th Cir. 2012) (necessity standard for accommodations)
- Vorchheimer v. Philadelphian Owners’ Ass’n, 903 F.3d 100 (3d Cir. 2018) (similar FHA analysis regarding smoking restrictions)
- Groner v. Golden Gate Apartments, 250 F.3d 1039 (6th Cir. 2001) (reasonable accommodation cannot infringe third parties’ contractual rights)
- Davis v. Echo Valley Condo. Ass’n, 349 F. Supp. 3d 645 (E.D. Mich. 2018) (district court opinion granting summary judgment below)