Search

WMA Reporter November 2017 Resident Relations Feature Article Warren Buffett's advice to small business owners is this: "The best advice to a small business owner... is never stop thinking about how to delight your customer. Not to satisfy your customer, but to delight your customer. And when you wake up in the morning, start thinking about it. At night, think about it. And then dream about it."

Remember too, that people generally will go along with a change if given a reason. It does not need to be the most elegant or elaborate reason. The point is to five a reason, i.e., "Yes, garbage cost will be passed through to the residents and let me explain the reason why... ". Most of the time the residents will feel they had their say, and they will be satisfied with the answer. Get in the habit of saying "and let me explain the reason why... ". Saying this will be a boon to your communication skills and thus your resident relations.

Several years ago, our state MHA offered the Accredited Community Manager (ACM) course. This course has been developed over the years by the Manufactured Housing Institute in conjunction with community owners. It is a top-notch course that dives deep into management and operations with sections on financials, resident relations, repairs and maintenance, and much more. The ACM instructor, Chrissy Jackson, a community owner, gave the class a tip for resident relations. It's the What We Do for You list. Chrissy recommended making a list of things, big and small, noticeable and unnoticed, that you do for the residents. Ideas for using the What We Do for You list could be printed once a year in your newsletter, put it on your website, as a hand out in the office, or laminated and posted in the office. It's also a tool for your manager, too. In the hubbub of their duties, it is easy for manager to forget why the community is a great place to live. The What We Do for You list needs to be top of mind for them.

It keeps them enthusiastic about the mobilehome park and what a great value it offers the residents. What doesn'twork is when a resident complains to a manager and the manager's response is, "Uh... let me get back to you." The manager's response needs to be energetic and positive after hearing out the resident. Our managers should add to this list monthly. Do you think there is nothing new that you do for your residents? Or do you think the residents know everything the community does and provides? Think again. This might be new information to your residents but it's a good refresher, too. Here is a sample:

A LETTER TO THE RESIDENTS OF ABC MOBILEHOME PARK

Dear Residents,

Thank you for another wonderful year at ABC. We have had some fun with our first annual Clean Up Contest. Looking back at the year in review, we have done some very nice improvements to the park and will continue that trend in to 2018.

Streets, Sewer and Water:

Most years we make a significant street repair or replacement project; our harsh Midwest climate is tough on streets. With an older park, such as our ABC, the water lines and sewer lines are repaired and replaced a lot. We thank our residents who are careful about what they put down their sinks and toilets and refrain from grease, cigarettes, and wipes getting flushed or poured down the drains.

Water Conservation and Water Meters

Adding individual meters has resulted in over 1,000,000 gallons of water consumption reduction per year! We also notify residents when their consumption spikes, so they can remedy a dripping faucet or other leak. Conserving water is an important contribution to sustainability. Consistently looking for water main leaks adds to this effort and contains operational cost.

New Homes:

Buying new homes for the community helps upgrade the overall appearance of the park. Buying pre-owned homes has offered our residents the opportunity to move up to a newer or larger home. When a resident buys a "new" park owned home, we often buy that resident's existing mobilehome. This helps them buy the "new" home.

LED and Sustainability:

We have installed some LED lighting in our outside storage area and on individual lots where the yard lights were repaired or replaced. Some of the hills have been planted with shrubs for erosion resistance and to cut down on mowing, as per a city initiative to curb carbon emissions.

Appearance of Homes and Home Sites:

During our Spring and Fall Clean Up Campaigns, our managers did a masterful job of working with the residents to get the mobilehomes and home sites looking clean and cared for as possible. There was a lot of power washing, painting, skirting and general junk removal. Our managers and residents worked together on this year's clean up so that residents can feel proud of where they live.

New Resident Screening:

The managers do their best to screen prospective residents so that when a home in the community sells a good resident moves in. Further, we use a service for background checks. Our managers provide onsite management that is backed up by our regional property manager, making sure that there is always someone available in person, by email, or by phone to listen and address questions or concerns.

Selling Tenant Owned Homes:

There are a lot of people that would like to move in to your community. The many inquiries and calls we receive is a good indication of demand. Our website benefits residents by providing basic information about the park, rules and policies, lot rent, homes for sale, etc. We also help our residents with the paperwork or selling their home.

Again, thank you for the wonderful year. Please feel free to reach out to management if you have a question or concern.

Ultimately, the mobilehome park's job is to operate in such a way that the homeowners' home value is at least maintained, if not enhanced. Mobilehome ownership may be one of the tenants' largest assets. We owe it to them to make the mobilehome park as clean, well run, and attractive as possible.

Joanne Stevens is a real estate broker specialist in listing and selling mobilehome parks and manufactured home communities throughout the U.S. She can be reached at 319.378.6785 phone; 319.365.9833 fax; and email: joannestevens@joannemstevens.com.

This article is reprinted with permission from WMA Reporter November 2017 'Resident Relations Feature Article'.

WHAT DOES THE LAW SAY?

The Fair Housing Act (FHA) bans housing discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, and familial status.

There are two ways to prove a fair housing violation, Williams explained. The first and most common is to show intentional discrimination-what's known as disparate treatment. In these cases, the issue is whether people in similar situations were treated differently, and if so, whether that different treatment was due to that person's protected category.

The second is what's known as disparate impact. It's used to challenge a housing policy that on its face is neutral-that is, it doesn'tappear to favor one protected category over another-but when the policy is applied, it has a significantly negative impact or effect on one protected category. These cases are always based on statistical analyses using either national or local data, Williams said. It's this second category that was the focus of HUD's new guidelines on criminal background checks.

To illustrate why the use of criminal screening policies have been causing such concern, Williams cited a recent study showing racial disparities in the criminal justice system. According to the study, one in every three black males born today can expect to go to prison at some point in their lives; this compares with one in every six Latino males, and one in every 17 white males. "Racial minorities are more likely than white Americans to be arrested," according to the report. "Once arrested, they are more likely to be convicted; and once convicted, they are more likely to face stiff sentences." The conclusions of this and other similar studies have resulted in a bipartisan effort to improve the criminal justice system to remove this apparent racial bias.

Overview: HUD General Counsel Announcement

In a nutshell, HUD's new guidelines explain how the agency will evaluate fair housing claims based on the disparate impact that criminal background screening policies may have on racial and ethnic minorities. Williams explained the three-step process:

Step 1: The plaintiff must prove that a community's neutral criminal history screening process has a significant disparate impact on African Americans and Hispanics. The plaintiff could be an individual, an advocacy agency, a testing agency, or an enforcement agency like HUD or the Justice Department. To satisfy this step, the plaintiff needs statistics showing that African Americans are arrested and convicted of crimes at a significantly higher rate than whites using local or national statistics. In most cases, it's not difficult to provide these statistics. If the evidence ends, the plaintiff wins.

Step 2: Then it's up to the housing provider to identify a substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory business interest accomplished by the policy. One obvious reason is to improve safety and security, but HUD warns that bald assertions based on generalizations and stereotypes aren'tenough. It takes more than a personal preference to screen out all ex-offenders to justify a criminal screening policy-you'll need some statistical support for your policy. If the evidence ends, the housing provider wins.

Step 3: In the final step, the plaintiff gets another chance to win the case with proof that a different policy would meet the interests of the housing provider but do so with a much less discriminatory impact. This is where the content of your criminal history screening policy can be challenged unless the policy is narrowly tailored to meet the ultimate purpose of the policy-to protect safety, for example-without denying housing to many applicants with a criminal record who may not actually pose a risk to your property.

The bottom line: To defend your policy, you'll need to show that it accurately distinguishes between criminal conduct that indicates a demonstrable risk to residents' safety-and conduct that does not. For that, you'll need to consider statistics about recidivism-that is, the likelihood that a person convicted of a particular crime in the past is likely to be re-arrested for another crime in the future.

As an example, Williams cited a study showing that the likelihood of re-arrest following release from prison goes down over time. Although nearly half of the subjects were rearrested, it was much more likely to happen during the first few years after release. By the end of the eight-year study, arrest incidents dropped down to the point where the percentage of those re-arrested was close to anyone else-including those without a past criminal record.

Another example was a report on the kinds of crimes most often committed after release from prison. In that study, the most common felony resulting in a re-arrest was assault-at 24 percent-and the least were rape and homicide, at less than 2 percent each.

You don't have to become a criminal justice expert as long as you understand that disparate impact cases rise and fall on statistics, Williams said. These and many more studies are available to plaintiffs when challenging criminal history policies, so you should take them into account when reviewing your own policies.

TIME OUT!

Statutory Exemptions from Fair Housing Liability

When evaluating your criminal background screening criteria, consider the "statutory exemptions" from fair housing liability:

Manufacturing and distribution of drugs: Applicants with criminal convictions related to manufacturing and distribution of controlled substances as defined in Section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act can be excluded. Keep in mind, however, that a large percentage (30 percent of the entire U.S. prison population, according to FBI reports) has some type of criminal history based on drug offenses, so you should be careful when it comes to convictions for less serious offenses, such as drug possession.

Sex offender registries-lifetime registrants: Rejecting a registered sex offender (especially those who are required to register for life) is stated as a statutory exemption under the HUD tenant selection plan, Richer said. Many market-rate communities also accept this practice since there is a significant financial, safety, and reputational risk.

But beware: Sex offender registry websites in California, Nevada, and New Jersey have clauses prohibiting use of the sex offender registry information for housing eligibility. Even in those states, Richer believes that federally funded housing under HUD programs would probably still be eligible to use state registry information, but you should check with your attorney to confirm your company's position.

This is the first of four articles. Look for 'part 2' next week on MHCO.ORG.

 Two states away, Kimberly, a park owner, and her park manager were driving through her park, Maple Creek, and pulled over to stop and pick up a coke can. It was unusual to have to stop and do this. But that was due to the consistent actions of residents being held accountable for keeping their homesites and home exteriors clean and in good repair. It had taken over two years to get the 400 residents onboard, but now the community swelled with pride of ownership.

            What do Eleanor’s Whispering Maples and Kimberly’s Maple Creek communities have in common? Maples! No, that’s not it. One key common thread is good resident relations. Another common trait is the owners’ and managers’ mission of having the cleanest communities and best residents in the market. What does this have to do with profitability? The answer is pretty much everything. 

            How did the owners and managers get to a high level of compliance in rent collections and home appearance? Eleanor and Kimberly understood that to attract and retain the best residents, they needed to start with their websites. For prospective residents, the pictures, testimonials, and ease of finding information made these parks stack up well against other housing options. Prospective residents want to feel good about telling friends, family and co-workers, about where they will be living. Existing tenants liked the resident section of the website where they could find answers to their questions, copies of the leases and rules, and even a payment portal. They also like the compliments about their community they received from family and friends looking at pictures from the website. 

            The secret of the website was the number of prospects that came from and were directed from ads on Facebook and other social media, as well as, print media that directed prospects to the website for more information and online applications. These ads increased traffic to the website which increased the number of applicants. This increased applicant pool allowed the managers to pick the best possible tenants from the ever-increasing pool of prospects, thus making the best rental decisions possible. You can guess (and accurately, too) that making the best possible rental decisions helped fill vacant sites and vacant homes quickly, and with quality tenants. It was a win/win. 

            The mindset of these owners is that of abundance; there are plenty of credit worthy, conscientious, pride-of-home-appearance-having prospects (whether it’s a home buyer or renter). It is essential, though, to increase the applicant pool. How did they do this? One tactic was lots of quality community pictures of the homes (ones actually in the park, not just stock images), the signage, landscaping, and even the residents. They realized most people are visual. More pictures, not less, especially of the homes, is key.

            A tactic of Julio Jaramillo, founder and CEO of Evergreen Communities with 4,000 sites in 8 states, is for every community manager to talk to three park residents every day. Because Julio’s managers are compensated for home sales and home rentals, this practice makes the residents feel acknowledged and listened to. As a result, Julio’s managers sell and lease more homes. The managers are also very aware of any issues in the community and can get ahead of issues before something even becomes a problem – such as moving tenants.

            Successful community owners and managers find it helpful to have a vision. Helen Keller was asked, “Can you think of anything worse than being blind?” “Yes” she said, “Being able to see but having no vision.”

 Getting Real:

            There probably are some community owners and managers that are just naturally happy people. They wake up in the morning and can’t wait to get to the community. Statistically, this number might be as high as 20%. Like Warren Buffet, they tap dance into work each day.  For most people, it takes some concentration, mental gymnastics, and a pot of coffee, to keep their eyes on the prize. 

Building a Resident Relations Vision:

1. Owners and managers need to have an ‘abundance’ mindset. Today, because apartment rents and house prices have appreciated so much, many prospective community residents and current residents don’t qualify to buy a site-built house or rent a newly built apartment. The MH Community business has plenty of people that want what your park has to offer.

2. Current residents that consistently pay late, or have to be filed on, may have to find other housing. In our communities, we offer a free listing service. It’s available to all but it is meant to help the residents, who won’t comply with timely rent or home & lot rules, relocate as painlessly as possible. Al, an owner of 2,000 sites, offers a cash for keys program for residents that won’t comply. The last thing anyone wants or needs is an eviction on their record.

Arty is a park manager at Green Meadows, a medium sized park. He felt exhausted and annoyed with the park residents and their homes. “And it’s only 11 am on Monday” he laments. A whole week lay in front of Arty, of grinding it out – collecting rents, confronting non-payers, “Noticing” ungovernable residents, mowing and trimming their homes, since “they wouldn’t just do it”. Arty wondered if he should quit and look for another job, maybe a greeter at Wally World.

The Benefits of Resident Relations:

• Resident Relations keeps managers and owners energized, focused on achieving initiatives. Whether it’s 100% rent collections, pet policy enforcement, home compliance, 100% occupancy or park expansion, they (to quote Walt Disney) “Keep moving forward.”
• Resident Relations involves proper marketing, tenant selection, and ongoing manager training. Resident Relations should never be at the bottom of the to-do list; it NEEDS to be a daily habit of every manager and owner.
• Resident Relations is a measurable quality. It is quantifiable in terms of:
  • • Profitability
    • Return of Investment (ROI)
    • Home Compliance Rate
    • Increased Applicant Pool
    • Increased Rental Rates and Home Sale Prices

You can see it. There even is a waiting list of prospective residents. There are no rundown POH’s nor abandoned homes that need to be removed. Let’s stop calling these ‘handyman specials” and allowing them to sit there month after month. We all know that the odds are slim that an actual handyman is coming along to buy, fix up and move into one of these homes.

• Mission-oriented managers and owners are players, not victims. Properly trained owners and managers understand the vital role housing plays in the lives of their residents. They care about being accountable to the mission and initiatives of their parks. They are players, strategizing for the best outcomes for maximizing the bottom line. “Victim” owners and managers can’t grasp why the residents don’t pay on time, and why their yards are not mowed. They blame the tenants, the city, the economy… As time goes on there are more homes out of compliance and more late payers. 
• Let’s play a game… (this is a spin on the Florida man birthday Google search game) You type in affordable housing, your birthday (affordable housing, January 15^th) in Google then click the news tab. How many articles did you get? Most towns and cities have weekly newspapers articles and TV news reports on the lack of affordable housing. It’s a key topic of discussion for local, state, and national elections. Mobile home parks can be an important part of the solution for affordable housing, but not if the political candidate or their staff drive through a park and see unsightly abandoned homes, tires stacked in yards, or weeds three feet high. Resident Relations are the face of mobile home parks.

Three Things Owners and Managers Can Start Doing to Have the Fastest Resident Relations Outcomes:

1. Review your mission, initiatives, and goals for the year. It is not too late to get going on the things that have fallen through the cracks. Your mission, initiatives and goals need to be in writing, and you need to look at them every morning.

2. Contact three residents every day. This means if you have a 200-site park, you have called each resident at least once in the past three months. (21 workdays per month, times 3= 189)

3. Every resident, prospective resident, local official, political candidate, journalist ought to be able to look at your website (your virtual front door) or drive the community and have a favorable impression. If the homes in your community are in compliance, what might the prospective tenants think when they drive through? Guaranteed, they just drove through a competing park, where the rules have not been enforced.

The good news is that mobile home parks are filling up. This is the time to be selective in renting and selling homes. Check out the tenants’ budget. Can they afford to live in your community? Ideally 30% or so of their gross income is their budgeted housing cost. If the homes in your community are out of that price range, don’t rent to them. Being selective with your prospects and keeping your homes in compliance is good for your park’s image and for your stress level!

Joanne Stevens is a national Mobile Home Park broker.  Sign up for her free industry E-newsletter at www.joannemstevens.com  To request a mailed copy of her newsletter, contact Joanne at: joannestevens@iowarealty.com M: 319-310-0641 / O: 319-378-6786 

The Basic Rule for Liability Avoidance in a Mobilehome Park 

It is the parents’ responsibility, not management’s, to decide ability to swim and access privileges for minors. Access, hours, and supervision restrictions are illegal under the Federal Fair Housing Amend- ments Act of 1988 (FHAA).1 While narrowly drawn rules may differentially impact children (persons under 18 years of age), these are not advised. The “default setting” is best: the law requires that the parents be vested with exclusive discretion to decide, control and live with their choices for kid’s access and supervision issues. Likewise, scour the rules and regulations (and now, internal management policies, manuals, agreements and memoranda) to eliminate any rule which mentions “children.” Use of the term “children” is a trigger word, no different than use of any other label for a person in a protected class. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) treats children as “small adults” for purposes of scrutinizing rules.

The Federal Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 (FHAA) created a new protected class of “familial status”. In California, the federal courts have addressed this requirements by ruling that “all age” communities may not discriminate against children, no more than management can discriminate against any other protected class.

Federal Requirements and Over-Regulation 

Let’s face it; some parents are not responsible. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, of all children one to four years old who died from an unin- tentional injury, almost 30% died from drowning. Fatal drowning remains the second-leading cause of unintentional injury-related death for children ages one to 14 years. The same report reveals that “the fatal drowning rate of African American children ages 5 to 14 is 3.1 times that of white children in the same age range.”

1. E.g., United States v. Plaza Mobile Estates, 273 F.Supp.2d 1084 (C.D. Cal. 2003); Bischoff v. Brittain, No. 2:14-cv-01970-KJM-CKD, United States District Court, E.D. California (May, 2016).

Mobilehome park swimming pools are deemed public, and re- quire fencing, postings and related equipment. In years past, it was believed that parkowners could require adult supervision in the swimming pool area, but it is for the parents to decide and control.

State Requirements and Conflict with the FHAA and the FEHA

California, meanwhile, promulgated modifications to Title 24, but apparently did not clear their proposals with any lawyer or the children’s rights lobby. The state mandated sign includes language mandated by Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, as follows:

“WARNING: NO LIFEGUARD ON DUTY Children under the age of 14 shall not use pool without a parent or adult guardian in attendance.”

This language is a prima facie violation of the FHAA protections against discrimination on the basis of familial rights.2 Posting this sign places every operator of a Title 22 swimming pool (that’s us parkowners) in violation of the FHAA. If posted, any aggrieved family member may sue just because it is posted (enforced or not). Since posting this sign exposes a parkowner to liability, what should the parkowner do? First, offer to post the sign which would be consistent with the FHAA:

“WARNING: NO LIFEGUARD ON DUTY Children under the age of 14 should not use pool without a parent or adult guardian in attendance; management recommends no one swim alone.”

Despite entreaties made for clarification to resolve this conflict, to both the Department of Housing and Community Development (HUD) and the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH), there has been no response. This problem does not lie in an older persons (55+) park, by the way. This is because the “older persons” park is exempt from the familial status requirements. Since a parkowner may entirely exclude children due to the effect of the 55+ regulation, allowing kids at all is a benefit that is not required (total exclusions, pool hours, supervision are all allowable restrictions) all permissible in the “older persons” community at this time.

2 . In striking down the legal requirement for signage as a discrimination defense, the central district judge held that " . . . there is nothing magical about the age of 18 or 14 years old if defendants' concerns are for the protection of the health and safety of the children or other residents in using recreational facilities or the swimming pool or riding bicycles. Such concerns could be addressed with the use of rules. Moreover, rather than being connected to such ages, bicycle and pool safety would be better served with a proficiency requirement." U.S. v. Plaza Mobile Estates. 

In many counties, the illicit requirement is not applicable until capital renovation of the pool area. But if not, what do you do if the county representative refuses to consent to the suggested modification? Do you refuse to comply with state law in order to comply with the FHAA, or do you comply with the state mandate and violate the FHAA? As of this time, you must seek out counsel, pay them, obtain advice, and follow it.

Management Communications Can Violate the FHAA

In a housing case decided in Northern California in May, 2016, the landlord was called out for discrimination against children in an all age facility. In Bischoff v. Brittain,3 the on site management received training, including a “Resident Relations Training,” at seminars pro- vided by independent experts. A “Brief Recap of Notes” document summarizes several meetings and was distributed to the managers. The document stated that as to handling unsupervised children:

1. If you have a young child not being supervised, walk the child home and speak with whoever is in charge.

2. Have your supervisor write a letter after you speak with the person in the apartment, which will alert whoever opens the mail, that you are worried over the child’s safety-you are now showing safety concerns and are not attacking their parenting skills or being discriminatory.

1. If nothing changes and the child is once again outside un- supervised, notify your super- visor who will now contact so- cial services and/or the police. 

2. If nothing still changes, we will then consider eviction and note the reasoning on their notice. 


The landlord’s property director said the document is “simply a statement of suggested guidelines for the managers’ reference and discretionary application to unsupervised young children.” However, the court found that the reasoning violates “familial status” rights. The director relied on a mistaken understanding that “young children require regular adult super- vision.” She felt that management should “encourage [...] parents and guardians to exercise such supervision for the safety of their young children and for the benefit of other residents.” She believed that “such supervision is necessary so that young children who are tenant residents “will not be at risk of injuring themselves” or other residents, or “engaging in disruptive or destructive activities.”

“In an effort to promote such supervision and discourage parent-guardian neglect, we developed internal suggested guidelines for managers to use in their discretion as circumstances might war- rant.”

3. U.S.Dist.E.D.Ca. April 29, 2016, Decided; May 2, 2016, No. 2:14-cv-01970-KJM-CKD, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58280.

The guidelines do not pass muster, said the court. While intended to protect the safety and well-being of young children in need of supervision, to encourage parents or guardians to provide that needed supervision, and to limit disturbances to other residents, they also allow differential treatment. It is no help that the guidelines serve the concomitant business purpose of protecting against liability that might arise from injuries to such young children.

The court found that the landlord’s policies “[...] toward unsupervised young children inherently treats children differently than adults by limiting when they may use the common areas of the complex to times when they are supervised by an adult.” The guidelines also treat parents of young children differently by subjecting them to certain consequences if their children are found unsupervised. Adult-only households may use the complex without limitation and warnings or facing eviction for violating the adult supervision guidelines. Be- cause children are subjected to explicitly differential treatment there was a validly claimed discrimination based on the face of the guide- lines.

The landlord claimed the guide- lines are not discriminatory: they are not a formalized, mandatory “policy” or rental provision; they only limit young children to the ex- tent the children are unsupervised; they apply only to young children; they have nondiscriminatory justifications; and they originated from a “neutral” source (educational sources). The court replied that the landlord did not understand the law: “[...]to establish a prima facie case of facial discrimination, a plaintiff must show only that the defendant subjects a protected group to explicitly differential treatment”4. But the landlord did not dispute that it treated unsupervised young children and their parents differently than adults sans children.

The guidelines were violations even if just “[l]imiting the use of privileges and facilities [which] is a violation of [§ 3604(b)].” The court also found it irrelevant that the guidelines distilled “neutral” information. The courts have held that “all-age” park rules which: (i) treat kids differently; (ii) are not based on a “compelling business necessity” and (iii) did not represent the “least restrictive intrusions” on familial status rights in promoting a health and safety interest, violate the law.

Any age restrictive rules which treat children, (and thus, families with children), differently and less favorably than adults-only house- holds violate the law. Period. In other words, no matter how ad- ministered, the rules were invalid as drafted. Even if never enforced, such rules may lead to a resident’s belief about allowable restrictions in use of the facilities. And now, the right to sue extends to internal policies handed down to on site personnel.

4. Citing Community House, Inc. v. City of Boise (9th Cir. 2007) 490 F.3d 1041 at 1050.

Safeguards Against Harm? 

Well-meant intentions are no defense, said the court. The court noted that the landlord submitted no evidence that managers were told to apply the policy only if a young child’s safety was threatened, or that managers in practice applied the policy in such a way. Land- lord also said, diluting the safety defense, that one of the “primary goals” of the guidelines is to limit disturbances to other residents by children, which “likely encompasses situations beyond those in which a child’s safety is legitimately threatened.” Peace and quiet is not a licit basis for the special treatment of children. Broad exclusionary policies without very particular narrowly tailored terms will be struck down. No cases specify what those narrow, least intrusive regulations might look like. And, it is submitted that seeking to develop children-specific rules is so fraught with difficulty and exposure as not to be worth the time and effort. Again, let the parents and guardians decide.

Eliminate the Exposure You May Have: 

Scour on-site management directives, policy handbooks, instructions, procedures manuals, emails. In other words, audit your intermediate level of management documentation; the entire body of memorialized supervision instructions, policies and requirements that apply to on site management. Do your employment agreements contain your fair housing policy? Do your agreements prohibit discriminatory statements, actions, conduct, communications, jokes, or notices? None of these documents is privileged from the prying eye of the plaintiff class counsel. It may be time to update these documents.

Remember: requiring adult supervision is NOT allowed in all age parks. 

An adult supervision requirement is outlawed by several decisions citing United States v. Plaza Mo- bile Estates: it is the parents, not management, who act as the “gate- keepers” of the facilities including swimming pool access and usage of facilities in “all age” communities. Requiring any form of super- vision constitutes a violation of the FHAA.

The FHAA Examples of Improper Rules to Update 

Rules and regulations in “all age” communities which discriminate include the following. If your rules contain any of the following restrictions, or any rules similar to them, it is strongly advised that a legal advisor conversant with the FHAA (and implementing regulations and judicial and administrative interpretations) be promptly consulted.

• “Residents and visitors under the age of eighteen (18) years old are not permitted to use the saunas [or] jet pool at any time;” 

• “Residents and visitors under the age of fourteen (14) years old are not permitted to use the saunas or jet pool (spa) at any time;” 

• “Use of the spa is prohibited to children under eighteen (18) years old;” 
“Use of the pool by children fourteen (14) years old and un- der requires accompaniment by a resident;” 

• “Parent of resident child or resident host must accompany 
children at all times in the pool or pool area;”
• “No one under the age of four-
teen (14) years old is allowed • to use the Jacuzzi;”
• “Guests and residents under the age of eighteen (18) years
old are permitted to use the swimming pool and sun deck from the hours of 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. only and must be accompanied by an adult park resident;”
• “Parent or responsible adult must accompany all children under fourteen (14) years old at all times [in the swimming pool and/or pool area];”
• “Minors under 16 years old are not permitted in the therapeutic pool;”
• “At 2:00 p.m. children are to be out of the pool area;”
• “All children must be accompanied by an adult to use the pool;”
• Children under the age of fourteen (14) years old shall not be allowed to ride a bicycle on the park streets without the accompaniment of an adult registered to the mobilehome in which they reside;
• Children under the age of eight (8) years old must be confined to a play area in the rear fenced yard of the family residence;
• “Children under 18 years old must be accompanied by a parent when they are in the swimming pool;”
• Children shall not be allowed to play on park streets, or in any other common areas;
• Residents under the age of eighteen (18) years old shall not be permitted to use the recreation building (clubhouse) or any other recreational facilities without the accompaniment of an adult registered to the mobilehome in which they reside;
• Residents under the age of eighteen (18) years old must be accompanied by the registered resident adult from the same household in order to use any of the recreational facilities or recreational building (club- house);
• Residents and visitors under the age of eighteen (18) years old may use the swimming pool and sun deck during the hours of 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. (noon) every day. Residents and visitors under the age of eighteen (18) years old are not permitted around the pool or sun deck after 12:00 noon;
• Residents and visitors under the age of eighteen (18) years old are not permitted to use the saunas or the therapeutic jet pool at any time; 

• Children under the age of four- teen (14) years old must be ac- companied by a registered resident adult to be allowed to ride a bicycle in the park streets; 

• The adult resident host must accompany all guests of their mobilehome who use the recreation building (clubhouse) or any of the recreational facilities of the park; 

• Children under the age of fourteen (14) years old must be ac- companied by the registered resident adult from the same household in order to use any of the recreational facilities or recreational building (club- house); 

• When using the clubhouse, persons under ten (10) years old must be accompanied by an adult resident; use of the billiards room was restricted to residents over eighteen (18) years old; 

• Use of the spa was prohibited to children under eighteen (18) years old; 

• Use of the pool by children fourteen (14) years old and under required accompaniment by a resident; 

• Bicycle riding by anyone is prohibited unless accompanied by adult resident parent or adult host; 

• Parent of resident child or resident host must accompany children at all times in the pool or pool area;
• Guests and residents under the age of eighteen (18) years old are permitted to use the swimming pool and sun deck from the hours of 9.00 a.m. to 12 noon only and must be accompanied by the parent or resident child or resident host;
• No one under the age of eighteen (18) years old is permitted in the billiard room at any time;
• No one under the age of four- teen (14) years old is allowed to use the Jacuzzi;
• At 2:00 p.m. children are to be out of the pool area;
• Children are not to walk around the park without adult supervision;
• Minors under 16 years old are not permitted in the therapeutic pool;
• For safety, children are not to ride bicycles, roller skates, skateboards, play in the street, play in RV storage, car wash, or wander around the park;
• Children under 8 years old shall be confined to a play area in the rear fenced yard of the family residence;

Age restrictive rules are “facially” discriminatory when they treat children, and thus, families with children, differently and less favor- ably than adults-only households. In other words, no matter how ad- ministered, the rules were invalid as drafted. Even if never enforced, such rules may lead to a resident’s belief about allowable restrictions in use of the facilities.

The FFHA 

In 1988, Congress amended the Federal Fair Housing Act (“FFHA”) to prohibit not just discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, disability or national origin, but also included “familial status” discrimination. “Familial status” is defined as “one or more individuals (who have not attained the age of 18 years) being domiciled with ... a parent or another person having legal custody of such individual or individuals.” Among other provisions, it is unlawful:

“To discriminate against any persons in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith, because of ... familial status ...”

Thus, in an all-age community, restrictions on access or use of common facilities and amenities based on age of a child (“familial status”) is a violation of the FHAA, absent “compelling business necessity.” 5 Any such rule must be proved to be the “least restrictive means” to achieving a health and safety justification. What does this legalese mean to the parkowner in practical terms? A full blown trial, risks of heavy penalties, damages and attorney’s fees and costs. This is because there is no bright line test for any age-restrictive regulation: the law is bereft of any standards

or guidance to make a reasonable, predictable risk-assessment or likelihood of success. Each case de- pends on the facts and surrounding circumstances. In other words, each case is a “test-case.” In sum, the penalties are so severe that prudent counsel would admonish all to eliminate age-restrictive rules and regulations.

“Children” are as protected as any other protected class. Thus, a simple way to test a rule for FHAA compliance is this: insert any other protected class in the place of “children” when testing a rule and regulation. For example, a common past rule (and no longer a valid one) is “all children under 14 years of age must be accompanied by an adult resident when in the pool area.” How does this sound: “All Methodists must be accompanied by an adult resident. . .” Obviously, such a rule would violate the FHAA.

It is also a violation of the FHAA to express to agents, brokers, employees, prospective sellers, or renters a preference for certain types of ten- ants. Another issue is the use of selective advertisements, or denying information about housing opportunities to particular segments of the housing market because of their race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin. It is a violation to place ads that specify a preference for: “mature ten- ants,” stating an aversion to “families with children, teenagers in the building; advertisements stating no more than “one child,” or stating that the parkowner does not “rent to children.” “Adult Community” at the entrance to a non-exempt com- munity also violates the FHAA. Use of the word “adult” without in- dicating it is housing for older per- sons, constitutes a violation of the

FHAA. There are no such things as “adult” mobilehome parks, and use of the phrase is deemed to chill family applicants from applying for tenancy in them.

The court held that these rules were not based on “compelling business necessity” and did not represent the “least restrictive” intrusions on “familial status” rights in promoting a health and safety interest. Having held that these rules were unlawful, the issues remaining for trial in the Plaza Mobile Estates case included damages, punitive damages, civil penalties, injunctive relief and attorney’s fees and costs for the private plaintiffs. While the action was brought as a class claim (in which all of possibly thousands of affected tenants could have been included in damages awards), class certification efforts were defeated, allowing only the named parties to seek damages.

The court’s comments regarding the invalidation of these rules is telling and troubling. The court stated that the age restrictive rules were “facially” discriminatory. In other words, no matter how ad- ministered, the rules were invalid as drafted. Even if never enforced such rules might dissuade a prospective applicant from applying for tenancy.

What Can We Do to Avoid This Mine Field? 

Even in the absence of specific rules and the ability to craft them, educational materials may help parents understand common risks associated with the very youth. When educational information is provided as an adjunct to an activity rather than a rule restricting an activity, the chance of a claim of discriminatory preference is less likely to be made. For example, when a parkowner offers such educational material from organizations who seek better protection of children (e.g., police departments, charitable organizations, etc.), the parkowner is providing a service - disseminating information and facts - not discriminating against children. 6

Conclusion 

All the parkowner wants is to know what the law is! What we do know is that certain rules are not permissible. Does it make any practical sense to promulgate new regula- tions affecting treatment of children? No.

The best policy for the all-age park is to have no references to children, child, adult, or other words which suggest differential treatment be-tween adults and children. The de- cisions affecting the young are for the parents to decide on.

Even with neutral rules and regulations, the enforcement of the rules needs to be considered. Does your manager have different attitudes, tone, manner or demeanor in general in dealing with kids and their parents? There is no room for derogatory comments, insults, or force beyond the same level applied to parents and other childless adults. Our mantra: Professional- ism. First and always! ◆

5. Some cases phrase the test differently (least restrictive, narrowly tailored, not speculative, etc.), but the reader is best advised to apply the standards applicable to the most stringent precedents in effect at this time, until variations on the articulation of the proper test for rules is made judicially and clear through further appellate court development. This is what plaintiff lawyers do. They will make the claim that the rules do not pass muster under the most difficult of possible tests. If you wish to preclude court tests of your rules, they will be drafted based on clearing the highest possible legal hurdles.

6. For example, educational material exist which explain that young children have peripheral vision which is two-thirds that of an adult; they have difficulty determining the source of sounds; traffic noises and sirens may be confusing; they may not understand that an automobile may seriously hurt or kill them; most children cannot understand a complex chain of events; children believe that all grownups will look out for them; they think that if they can see an adult driving a car toward them, the driver must be able to see them; children often mix fantasy with reality - they may give themselves superhuman powers and do not understand that a moving vehicle can hurt them; they have difficulty judging the speed and distance of oncoming vehicles.

Terry R. Dowdall, Esq. has specialized in manufactured home communities’ law since 1978. Mr. Dowdall can be reached at Dowdall Law Offices, APC Orange County office; 284 North Glassell Street, 1st Floor, Orange, CA 92866; 714.532.2222 phone; 714.532.3238 fax. email: trd@dowdalllaw. net; www.dowdalllaw. com.

This article is reprinted from WMA "Reporter", July 2016.  MHCO would like to express our deep appreciation to WMA for their permission to reprint this informative article.

On July 26, 1990, President Bush signed into law the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), The Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (the "1991 Regulations") were shortly thereafter developed to guide new construction and alterations undertaken by covered entities and established the minimum requirements for "accessibility" for disabled persons in buildings and facilities and in transportation vehicles. After more than twenty years, the Department of Justice implemented new regulations, which became mandatory in 2012 (the "2012 Regulations.") Your state may have passed parallel laws, which could increase the protection of individuals with disabilities, e.g., the Unruh Act in California. However, this article focuses on Federal ADA compliance. Keep in mind that the ADA is a civil rights law, which addresses a number of subjects, but this article focuses on ac- cessibility (no longer called "handicap") issues only.

A mobile home park owner might ask, "How about my pre-exist- ing park, does it need to comply with ADA issues?" Answer: "It de- pends." If your mobile home park pre-dates the ADA statute, and the Park has not gone through any significant renovations (deter- mined on a case-by-case basis), then the park may be "grandfathered in" in most cases. However, there can still be considerations of "reasonable accommodation" and "readily achievable barrier removal" under the ADA that could require a park owner to make modifications to existing structures and to make existing buildings "accessible" to the disabled. There may be no "grandfathering in" under these provisions of the ADA. In addition, if the park has undergone sub- stantial alterations/renovations, this could also trigger ADA com- pliance. A mobile home park owner might also ask "If my park needs to comply with ADA issues, then does the park have to comply with the 1991 Regulations or the 2012 Regulations?" Once again, the answer is "it depends." There is a broad "grandfather" clause that exempts all building elements constructed in compliance with the 1991 Regulations until those elements are subject to a planned alteration.

So--is a mobile home park a "place of public accommodation" or not? The ADA defines a "public accommodation" to be "a private entity that owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation." Examples of places of "public accommodation" include places of lodging; establishments serving food or drink; places of exhibition or entertainment; places of public gathering; sales or rental establishments; service establishments; stations used for public transportation; places of public display or collection; places of public recreation; places of public education; social service center establishments; and places of exercise or recreation. Does a mobile home park fit within these descriptions? Based on discussions with ADA experts,the typical mobile home park does not appear to "fit" under any of the enumerated examples of a "public accommodation," assuming the park's facilities are only open for the sole use and enjoyment of the park's residents, rather than the "general public." In some cases, however, a park's clubhouse and office could be determined to be "public accommodations" as they are generally "opened to the pub- lic." In addition, the park's office is necessarily "opened to the pub- lic" as persons, not otherwise residents of the park, are allowed in and, in fact, are invited in to inquire about available spaces and/or mobile homes in the park. One issue which has been "rearing its ugly head" recently in connection with what are referred to as "drive-by" ADA lawsuits is the inadvertent conversion of a "non-public" ac- commodation to a "public" accommodation. For example, if the park clubhouse is not open to the general public, but the park allows the clubhouse to be used as a polling station for elections, or for classes for the local college, or for swimming lessons in the pool, the park may have inadvertently converted the area to a "public" accommodation and will be required to comply with the ADA for the impacted area, e.g., pool or clubhouse. Even the "innocent" re- quest by one person to use the "private" restroom at the management office could trigger thousands of dollars in improvements to make the restroom "accessible".

If the park has "public accommodations" which have "barriers" to "access," then the next consideration is whether the "removal of the barrier" is "readily achievable." Remember that these barriers apply to all sorts of disabilities, including sight and hearing, and not just accessibility for wheel chairs. The ADA generally defines "readily achievable" as easily accomplished and able to be carried out with- out much difficulty or expense. 42 U.S.C.S. _ 12181(9). Federal courts have developed several factors in determining what is "readily achievable": (1) nature and cost of the removal; (2) overall financial resources of the facility or facilities involved; (3) number of persons employed at such facility; (4) effect on expenses and re- sources; (5) impact of such action upon the operation of the facility; (6) overall financial resources of the covered entity; (7) overall size of the business of a covered entity with respect to the number of its employees; (8) the number, type, and location of its facilities; (9) type of operation or operations of the covered entity, including com- position, structure, and functions of the workforce of such entity; and (10) geographic separateness, administrative or fiscal relation- ship of the facility or facilities in question to the covered entity. Col- orado Cross Disability Coalition v. Hermanson Family Ltd. Pshp. The park however will bear the ultimate burden to prove that the barrier removal is not readily achievable. This will be determined on a case- by-case basis for each individual park. The 1991 Regulations pro- vide examples of steps that may be "readily achievable" according to the Department of Justice.

So, how do you lessen the chance of your park becoming a "tar- get" of an ADA lawsuit? There are no "bright lines" as to whether a park has ADA issues or not. Since an "ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure," the prudent park owner might be best served by hiring a knowledgeable ADA Consultant to review and comment on whether the park has any ADA issues and how they should or could be addressed. California has implemented a Certified Access Specialist ("CASp") training and licensing program, which provides incentives (i.e., some protections from lawsuits) for property owners who conduct a CASP inspection. Another, and more conservative approach would be to simply make sure that all of the park facilities are "ADA compliant," even if, technically and legally, you may not be required to do so. Little things can make a big difference in your park. Examples of ADA compliance include: levers on the entrance doors; levers on bathroom doors and fixtures; bathroom fixtures at proper height; proper bathroom accessories; doorways that accept wheelchair access; bathrooms that accept wheelchair access; counters at correct height for wheelchairs users; alternatives (ramps/elevators) to steps into the clubhouse and office; acceptable transitions (no lips) at doorways (interior and exterior); accessible parking and van access spaces; acceptable transitions (commonly referred to as "curb cuts") to sidewalks at street junctions and accessible parking; and acceptable inclines from parking areas to the park's "public accommodations," to name a few.

Your ADA consultant can walk your park and let you know what facilities do and do not comply with ADA. Making the necessary improvements will be money well spent, and potentially "ward off' ex- pensive litigation, which litigation, in all probability, will not be covered by your general liability insurance policy. You might also want to turn this into a "PR plus" for your park - i.e., tell your res- idents about the improvements after they are done! However, such actions may not be right for every park. The park owner should first discuss ADA considerations with its legal counsel to determine what the right course of action is under the particular circumstances.

In addition, insurance is playing an ever more important role in protection against ADA claims. More and more often, ADA plain- tiff lawyers are adding causes of action for negligence and alleging bodily injury to trigger the potential for coverage under the park owners CGL policies. Our recommendation is to tender any ADA claims to your carrier immediately. In addition, some insurers now offer what is known as "tenant discrimination" insurance, which may pro- tect the park owner in the event of an ADA claim since the ADA claim is a civil rights claim. We suggest all park owners speak with their industry insurance broker about possible insurance protection.

John Pentecost is a partner with Hart, King & Coldren, a law firm located in Santa Ana, California. His practice focuses on representation of mobilehome parks and recreational vehicle parks, as well as park owners, throughout the State of California. He can be reached at jpentecost@hk-claw.com

Reprinted with permission from "The Journal", August 2013

On July 26, 1990, President Bush signed into law the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), The Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (the “1991 Regulations") were shortly thereafter developed to guide new construction and alterations undertaken by covered entities and established the minimum requirements for "accessibility" for disabled persons in buildings and facilities and in transportation vehicles. After more than twenty years, the Department of Justice implemented new regulations, which became mandatory in 2012 (the “2012 Regulations.”) Your state may have passed parallel laws, which could increase the protection of individuals with disabilities, e.g., the Unruh Act in California. However, this article focuses on Federal ADA compliance. Keep in mind that the ADA is a civil rights law, which addresses a number of subjects, but this article focuses on ac- cessibility (no longer called “handicap”) issues only.

A mobile home park owner might ask, "How about my pre-exist- ing park, does it need to comply with ADA issues?" Answer: "It de- pends." If your mobile home park pre-dates the ADA statute, and the Park has not gone through any significant renovations (deter- mined on a case-by-case basis), then the park may be "grandfathered in" in most cases. However, there can still be considerations of "reasonable accommodation" and "readily achievable barrier removal" under the ADA that could require a park owner to make modifications to existing structures and to make existing buildings "accessible" to the disabled. There may be no "grandfathering in" under these provisions of the ADA. In addition, if the park has undergone sub- stantial alterations/renovations, this could also trigger ADA com- pliance. A mobile home park owner might also ask “If my park needs to comply with ADA issues, then does the park have to comply with the 1991 Regulations or the 2012 Regulations?” Once again, the answer is “it depends.” There is a broad “grandfather” clause that exempts all building elements constructed in compliance with the 1991 Regulations until those elements are subject to a planned alteration.

So--is a mobile home park a "place of public accommodation" or not? The ADA defines a "public accommodation" to be "a private entity that owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation." Examples of places of "public accommodation" include places of lodging; establishments serving food or drink; places of exhibition or entertainment; places of public gathering; sales or rental establishments; service establishments; stations used for public transportation; places of public display or collection; places of public recreation; places of public education; social service center establishments; and places of exercise or recreation. Does a mobile home park fit within these descriptions? Based on discussions with ADA experts,the typical mobile home park does not appear to "fit" under any of the enumerated examples of a "public accommodation," assuming the park's facilities are only open for the sole use and enjoyment of the park's residents, rather than the "general public." In some cases, however, a park's clubhouse and office could be determined to be "public accommodations" as they are generally "opened to the pub- lic." In addition, the park's office is necessarily "opened to the pub- lic" as persons, not otherwise residents of the park, are allowed in and, in fact, are invited in to inquire about available spaces and/or mobile homes in the park. One issue which has been “rearing its ugly head” recently in connection with what are referred to as “drive-by” ADA lawsuits is the inadvertent conversion of a “non-public” ac- commodation to a “public” accommodation. For example, if the park clubhouse is not open to the general public, but the park allows the clubhouse to be used as a polling station for elections, or for classes for the local college, or for swimming lessons in the pool, the park may have inadvertently converted the area to a “public” accommodation and will be required to comply with the ADA for the impacted area, e.g., pool or clubhouse. Even the “innocent” re- quest by one person to use the “private” restroom at the management office could trigger thousands of dollars in improvements to make the restroom “accessible”.

If the park has "public accommodations" which have "barriers" to "access," then the next consideration is whether the "removal of the barrier" is "readily achievable." Remember that these barriers apply to all sorts of disabilities, including sight and hearing, and not just accessibility for wheel chairs. The ADA generally defines "readily achievable" as easily accomplished and able to be carried out with- out much difficulty or expense. 42 U.S.C.S. § 12181(9). Federal courts have developed several factors in determining what is "readily achievable": (1) nature and cost of the removal; (2) overall financial resources of the facility or facilities involved; (3) number of persons employed at such facility; (4) effect on expenses and re- sources; (5) impact of such action upon the operation of the facility; (6) overall financial resources of the covered entity; (7) overall size of the business of a covered entity with respect to the number of its employees; (8) the number, type, and location of its facilities; (9) type of operation or operations of the covered entity, including com- position, structure, and functions of the workforce of such entity; and (10) geographic separateness, administrative or fiscal relation- ship of the facility or facilities in question to the covered entity. Col- orado Cross Disability Coalition v. Hermanson Family Ltd. Pshp. The park however will bear the ultimate burden to prove that the barrier removal is not readily achievable. This will be determined on a case- by-case basis for each individual park. The 1991 Regulations pro- vide examples of steps that may be “readily achievable” according to the Department of Justice.

So, how do you lessen the chance of your park becoming a "tar- get" of an ADA lawsuit? There are no "bright lines" as to whether a park has ADA issues or not. Since an "ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure," the prudent park owner might be best served by hiring a knowledgeable ADA Consultant to review and comment on whether the park has any ADA issues and how they should or could be addressed. California has implemented a Certified Access Specialist (“CASp”) training and licensing program, which provides incentives (i.e., some protections from lawsuits) for property owners who conduct a CASP inspection. Another, and more conservative approach would be to simply make sure that all of the park facilities are "ADA compliant," even if, technically and legally, you may not be required to do so. Little things can make a big difference in your park. Examples of ADA compliance include: levers on the entrance doors; levers on bathroom doors and fixtures; bathroom fixtures at proper height; proper bathroom accessories; doorways that accept wheelchair access; bathrooms that accept wheelchair access; counters at correct height for wheelchairs users; alternatives (ramps/elevators) to steps into the clubhouse and office; acceptable transitions (no lips) at doorways (interior and exterior); accessible parking and van access spaces; acceptable transitions (commonly referred to as "curb cuts") to sidewalks at street junctions and accessible parking; and acceptable inclines from parking areas to the park’s “public accommodations,” to name a few.

Your ADA consultant can walk your park and let you know what facilities do and do not comply with ADA. Making the necessary improvements will be money well spent, and potentially "ward off' ex- pensive litigation, which litigation, in all probability, will not be covered by your general liability insurance policy. You might also want to turn this into a "PR plus" for your park - i.e., tell your res- idents about the improvements after they are done! However, such actions may not be right for every park. The park owner should first discuss ADA considerations with its legal counsel to determine what the right course of action is under the particular circumstances.

In addition, insurance is playing an ever more important role in protection against ADA claims. More and more often, ADA plain- tiff lawyers are adding causes of action for negligence and alleging bodily injury to trigger the potential for coverage under the park owners CGL policies. Our recommendation is to tender any ADA claims to your carrier immediately. In addition, some insurers now offer what is known as “tenant discrimination” insurance, which may pro- tect the park owner in the event of an ADA claim since the ADA claim is a civil rights claim. We suggest all park owners speak with their industry insurance broker about possible insurance protection.

John Pentecost is a partner with Hart, King & Coldren, a law firm located in Santa Ana, California. His practice focuses on representation of mobilehome parks and recreational vehicle parks, as well as park owners, throughout the State of California. He can be reached at jpentecost@hk-claw.com

Reprinted with permission from “The Journal”, August 2013

The FHAA

In 1988, Congress amended the Fair Housing Act (FHA) to prohibit not just discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, disability, or national origin, but also included familial status discrimination. Familial status is defined as " one or more individuals (who have not attained the age of 18 years) being domiciled with ... a parent or another person having legal custody of such individual or individuals."

Among other provisions, it is unlawful:

"To discriminate against any persons in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith, because of ... familial status ..."

Thus, a restriction on access or use of common facilities and amenities bases on age of a child (familial status) is a violation of the FHAA, absent compelling business necessity. Any such rule must be proved to be the least restrictive means to achieving a health and safety justification. What does this legalese mean to the community owner in practical terms? A full-blown trial, risks of heavy penalties, damages, and attorney's fees and costs. This is because there is no bright line test for any age-restrictive regulation: the law is bereft of any standards or guidance to make a reasonable, predictable risk-assessment or likelihood of success. Each case depends on the facts and surrounding circumstances. In other words, each case is a test-case. In sum, the penalties are so severe that prudent counsel would admonish all to eliminate age-restrictive rules and regulations.

Children are as protected as any other protected class. Thus, a simple way to test a rule for FHA compliance is this: insert any other protected class in the place of "children" when testing a rule and regulation. For example, a common past rule (and no longer a valid one) is "all children under 14 years of age must be accompanied by an adult resident when in the pool area." Then, how does this sound: "All Methodists must be accompanied by an adult resident ...." Obviously, such a rule is patently violative of the FHA.

It is also a violation of the FHAA to express to agents, brokers, employees, prospective sellers, or renters a preference, (e.g. "... gosh, if I had my druthers, I would rather not rent to families"). Another issue is use of selective advertisements, or denying information about housing opportunities to particular segments of the housing market because of their race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or

national origin, (example, in an area overwhelmingly populated by non-English speakers, advertising only in English language publications). Other violations will be found where there are ads or statements made regarding applicants, including: "mature person;" stating an aversion to "families with children" or "teenagers in the building;" advertisements stating non more than "one child;" or, stating that the community owner does not "rent to children." Posting "Adult Community: at the entrance to a non-exempt community also violates the FHAA. Use of the word "adult" without more, constitutes a violation of the FHAA. There are no such thins as adult manufactured home communities, and use of the phrase is deemed to chill family applicants from applying for tenancy in them.

The various rules cited by the courts as impermissibly restricting access or denying the use of the communities' facilities and/or areas on the basis of age, included the following. If your rules contain any of the following restrictions, or any rules similar to them, it is strongly advised that a legal advisor conversant with the FHAA (and implanting regulations and judicial and administrative interpretations) be promptly consulted.

• Children under the age of fourteen (14) years old shall not be allowed to ride a bicycle on the community streets without the accompaniment of an adult registered to the manufactured home in which they reside;
• Children under the age of eight (8) years old must be confined to a play area in the rear fenced yard of the family residence;
• Children shall not be allowed to play on community streets, or in any other common are areas; Residents under the age of eighteen (18) years old shall not be permitted to use the recreation building (clubhouse) or any other recreational facilities without the accompaniment of an adult registered to the manufactured home in which they reside;
• Residents under the age of eighteen (18) years old must be accompanied by the registered resident adult from the same household in order to use any of the recreational facilities or recreational building (clubhouse);
• Residents and visitors under the age of eighteen (18) years old may use the swimming pool and sun deck during the hours of 10 a.m. to 12 p.m. (noon) every day. Residents and visitors under the age of eighteen (18) years old are not permitted around the pool or sun deck after 12 noon;Residents and visitors under the age of eighteen (18) years old are not permitted to use the saunas or therapeutic jet pool at any time;
• Children under the age of fourteen (14) years old must be accompanied by a registered resident adult to be allowed to ride a bicycle in the community streets;The adult resident host must accompany all guests of their manufactured home who use the recreation building (clubhouse) or any of the recreational facilities of the community;
• Children under the age of fourteen (14) years old must be accompanied by the registered resident adult from the same household in order to use any of the recreational facilities or recreational building (clubhouse);
• When using the clubhouse, persons under ten (10) years old must be accompanied by an adult resident;
• Use of the billiards room was restricted to residents over eighteen (18) years old;
• Use of the spa was prohibited to children under eighteen (18) years old;
• Use of the pool by children fourteen (14) years old and under required accompaniment by a resident;
• Bicycle riding by anyone is prohibited unless accompanied by adult resident parent or adult host;
• Parent or resident child or resident host must accompany children at all times in the pool or pool area.
• Guests and residents under the age of eighteen (18) years old are permitted to use the swimming pool and sun deck from the hours of 9 a.m. to 12 noon only and must be accompanied by the parent or resident child or resident host;
• No one under the age of eighteen (18) years old is permitted in the billiard room at any time;
• No one under the age of fourteen (14) years old is allowed to use the Jacuzzi;
• At 2 p.m. children are to be out of the pool area;
• Children are not to walk around the community without adult supervision;
• Minors under sixteen (16) years old are not permitted in the therapeutic pool;
• For safety, children are not to ride bicycles, roller skate, skateboard, play in the street, play in RV storage, plan in car wash or wander around the community;
• Children under with (8) years old shall be confided to a play area in the rear fenced yard of the family residence.

The court held that these rules were not based on compelling business necessity and did not represent the least restrictive intrusions on familial status rights in promoting a health and safety interest. Having held that these rules were unlawful, the issues remaining for trial in the Plaza Mobile Estates case included damages, punitive damages, civil penalties, injunctive relief and attorney's fees and costs for the private plaintiffs.

While the action had been brought as a class claim (in which all of possibly thousands of affected residents could have been included in damages awards), class certification efforts were defeated, allowing only the named parties to seek damages.

The court's comments regarding the invalidation of these rules is telling and troubling. The court stated the age-restrictive rules were facially discriminatory. In other words, no matter how administered, the rules were invalid as drafted. Even if never enforced , such rules might dissuade a prospective applicant from applying for tenancy. These rules "...treat children, and thus, families with children differently and less favorably than adults-only households." "Describ[ing] parks as 'adult' parks are clear examples of illegal steering. Although they are not outright refusals to sell or rent or families with children, they indicate a preference for adults only and certainly discourage families with children from applying."

Considering the various age restrictive rules, they fall into three categories: (1) absolute prohibitions, (2) adult supervision requirements, and (3) hours of access restrictions.

Absolute prohibitions

The absolute prohibitions include those rules that (1) prohibit all children under 18 (or 21) years old from using the billiard room and from riding bicycles, (2) prohibit all children under 16 (or 18) years old from using the therapeutic pool, (3) prohibit all children under 14 (or 18) years old from using the sauna or Jacuzzi, (4) require all children under 8 years old to be confined to rear fenced yard of family residence, and (5) prohibit all children from playing on community streets and any other common areas.

The court held that absolute prohibitions such as the foregoing are illegal. The regulations are not the least restrictive means to achieve health and safety objectives ("...prohibiting all 'children' from playing in common areas ... cannot be justified"). The same applies with the billiard room ("... it is unclear how a 17-year-old's access to a billiard room is any more hazardous to ... health or safety that a 22-year-old's access").

Supervision restrictions

The fundamental premise adopted by the court is that "[A]ny concerns that defendants may have are not necessarily linked to age, and any concerns about problem behavior can be address with the use of rules." Thus, the court invalidated blanket prohibitions of all 15-year-olds from using the therapeutic pool and all 13-year-olds from using the sauna or Jacuzzi

In certain instances adult supervision might less restrictively advance health and safety concerns ("assuming arguendo that defendants' concerns were more logically linked to the age restrictions, requiring adult supervision rather than imposing an absolute ban is clearly a less restrictive means ..."). But where to set the limit is uncertain. California regulations state:

"Where no lifeguard service is provided, a warning sign shall be placed in plain view and shall state 'Warning – No Lifeguard on Duty' with clearly legible letters at least 10.2 centimeters (4 inches) high. In addition, the sign shall also state 'Children Under the Age of 14 Should not Use Pool Without an Adult in Attendance."

Based on the Plaza Mobile Estates decision, it is needlessly legally risky to impose any supervision requirement. Clearly, a 14 year age limit for an adult supervision is not enforceable, not legal, and constitutes a violation of the FHA, despite former administrative decisions suggesting the contrary and California regulations cited above. Yet, the need for an age limit is strikingly clear. The same rule applies to use of spas and whirlpools. Certainly an adult supervision requirement should be reasonable[1], but eh court has ruled that such concerns are fro the parents, not the management.

A few apparently unassailable precepts

Given that this case raises many more questions than it answers, the ability to promulgate and rely on age-restrictive rules for access and supervision are certainly less than a matter of clarity. While the previous rulings concerning the enforceability of age-restrictive rules are in some doubt, a few precepts can be stated with some reliability. The first is that an outright prohibition of use or access to any facility or amenity cannot be allowed. Setting up selected hours for usage of a facility of amenity cannot be allowed. Less certain is the ability to promulgate rules requiring adult supervision of children of varying ages for use of facilities or amenities. It would appear that no supervision can be mandated for areas such as clubhouse, billiard room, library or common areas.

Establishing minimum age requirements for supervision: A foray into the uncertain

The "14 and under" requirement of California regulations for pool supervision is a should not a must provision. Hence, management cannot require supervision of 14 years of age and under. The only clearly legal position is not to require supervision, and let it be for the parents to take personal accountability and responsibility for their children. The court makes this statement:

"... there is nothing magical about the age 18 or 14 years old if defendants' concerns are for the protection of the health and safety of the children or other residents in using recreational facilities or the swimming pool or riding bicycles. Such concerns could be addressed with the use of rules. Moreover, rather than being connected to such ages, bicycle and pool safety would be better served with a proficiency requirement."

The courts have intervened on occasion to require discrimination against children for their own good and government does so all the time. For example, you cannot vote until you are 18, drink alcohol until you are 21, cannot drive until you are 16.[2] However, housing providers subject to the FHA may not rely on or use the same governmentally-established restrictions in developing their rules and regulations despite the dangers posed by the common area facilities.

Another example: Pedestrian injuries are the second greatest cause of harm to children from five to 14 years of age. See the National Safe Kids Campaign Bicycle Injury Fact Sheet, September, 1997.[3] However, it is illegal to have a rule and regulations which states that "children are not to walk around the community without adult supervision."

Is it unreasonable to require adult supervision within the common areas of a manufactured home community? It would seem that such a rule is reasonable. However, for a community owner, such a rule violates the FHA. On the other hand the Consumer Products safety Commission urges supervision of children while on a playground for example (Consumer Product Safety Commission, Public Playground Safety Checklist, CPSC Document #327: "10. Carefully supervised children on playgrounds to make sure they're safe"). The federal law states that the parents are responsible for their children, not the management.

Previously sustained rules

The courts have previously allowed the following rules. This information may be largely historical at this juncture, for it remains unclear whether or not they remain viable in light of the Plaza Mobile Estates decision (these rules were sustained under the previous "reasonableness" test, not the "compelling interest" basis test):

1. Rules which bar use of a pool for children fourteen (14) years of age and less have been upheld because the prohibition implements legislative policy. HUD v. Paradise Gardens, HUDALJ 04-90-0321-1, 1992 WL 406531 (HUDALJ Oct. 15, 1992)
2. A rule which required children under the age of fifteen (15) years to be accompanied by an adult who is at least eighteen (18) years old when using the swimming pool and exercise equipment. (HUD vs. Trace Corporation 1995 WL 434221 (H.U.D.A.L.J.)(Consent decree)).
3. Rules have been sustained for age restricted access as to power tools. "...Respondents may keep the machine shop with industrial power tools accessible only to tenants who are at least fifteen (15) years of age and may require tenant children between the ages of fifteen (15) and eighteen (18) years to be accompanied by an adult who is at least eighteen (18) years old when using the machine shop. Further, Respondent may require all users of the machine shop to hve complete training on the proper use of such tools." (HUD vs. Trace Corporation, 1995 WL 434221 (H.U.D.A.L.J.)(Consent decree)).]\
4. In the unpublished decision of United States v. Town Hall Terrace Association, 1997 WL 128353 (W.D.N.Y. 1997), the housing provider made available four pieces of exercise equipment: a multi-purpose with lifting machine, a stationary bicycle, an inclining board and a rowing machine – in its "the fitness center." Until 1992 an express policy restricted the use of the fitness center and its equipment to persons at least eighteen (18) years old. After mid-1992, this threshold was lowered to sixteen (16).[4]
5. One case allowed for a rule requiring adult supervision of children six (6) and under while biking in a street. U.S. v. M. Westland Co., CV 93-4141, Fair Housing-Fair Lending 15,941 (HUD ALJ 1994)). Another authority states that no child should be permitted in a street on a bicycle until at least ten (10) years of age. ("Cycling should be restricted to sidewalks and paths until a child is age 10 and able to show how well he or she rides and observes the basic rules of the road. Parental and adult supervision is essential and until the traffic skills and judgment thresholds are reached by each child." The National Safe Kids Campaign Bicycle Injury Fact Sheet, September, 1997).

But under the more recent Plaza Mobile Estates decision, the past allowances provide no basis on which to write your rules and regulations.

Don't blame the court!

However, it is too much to criticize or impugn the court for adhering to the letter of the law, and not legislating by "judicial fiat." The court interprets what the law is and does not legislate. That is the job of Congress and more pointedly in this case HUD (in its rule-making powers). The FHA prohibits discrimination, period. The federal law makes NO exceptions; exceptions to familial status rights is the job of HUD. It is not the court's duty. The court is not the Legislature.

The need for uniform guidelines to inform the housing providers of permissible restrictions

HUD should provide guidance for housing providers and establish bright line tests for common sense age-restrictive rules. HUD should defer to other legislative judgments made for child protection by allowing community owners to replicate existing laws in their rules and regulations. Model regulations for protection of the young could be published. HUD could establish a rule pre-approval procedure.

Community owners just want to comply with the law and provide reasonable requirements for protection of children. But now, even experienced lawyers cannot intelligibly predict the enforceability of any age-restrictive rules. At this time, attaining any ascribed legitimacy of a rule only follows after an expensive legal defense with a heavy burden of proof requiring compelling business necessity. A conciliation agreement binds the complainant. If another resident complains the next day, the conciliation agreement is worthless as a defense to the rule. This is an inconceivably inefficient manner of testing rule validity. The costs to business in such concerns vastly outweigh the benefit to be achieved. The cost to the consumer in spreading the expense of this exercise could be largely obviated if the housing provider had some guidance in defining acceptable rules for promotion of health and safety. The suggestion of administering proficiency tests is a null and void concept. The liability for negligently administering such tests, seeking and paying for qualified testers, and then excluding the non-proficient residents will not be pursued by a single housing provider.

What can we do? Even in the absence of specific rules, educational materials may help parents understand common risks associated with youth. When educational information is provided as an adjunct to an activity rather than a rule restricting an activity, the chance of a claim of discriminatory preference is less likely to be made. For example, when a community owner offers such educational material from organizations who seek better protection of children, (e.g., police departments, charitable organizations, etc.) the community owner is providing a service – disseminating information and facts – not discriminating against children.[5]

You may also consider consulting with HUD in advance of amending rules and regulations. IF HUD even informally opines that a proposed policy is not defensible, or that no comment can be offered, at least the community owner can better assess the risk faced with a new rule and regulation. For example, if a resident complains that a particular resident who has open sores due to infection with the AIDS virus desires to use the swimming pool, can the management require that resident to stay out of the pool?

When faced with the question, the manger called to advise that she was not sure how to proceed. While administrative regulations require a doctor's letter stating that no public health or safety risk was posed by the patient's use of the pool, I consulted with HUD before announcing the management policy.

Finally

All the community owner wants is to know what the law is! What we do know is certain rules, certain practices reflecting what the law is not. But it is grossly unfair to relegate the duty to set standards on management. Having read this article, can you now, safely amend your rules to impose such a rule? No. No attorney can give an absolute assurance that such a rule will be sustained until ruled valid in a court. Until a court actually rules on the validity of the rule, or HUD or DFEH offers guidance on their interpretation of the rule, there can be no assurance of what an will not be permitted in developing age-restrictive rules and regulations. The best policy is to eliminate any and all age restrictive rules and regulations to avoid FHA claims.

Reprinted with permission from Western Manufactured Housing Communities Association (WMA) "Reporter", June 2008.

Terry Dowdall has specialized in manufactured home communities' law since 1978. His firm, Dowdall Law Office, APC is located in Orange County and Sacramento, with a practice limited exclusively to the manufactured housing industry. Mr. Dowdall serves as a legal advisor on WMA's Legislative Committee and has authored publications for the Continuing Legal Education of the State Bar. He is a frequent contributor to the WMA Reporter and facilitator at WMA educational seminars. He can be reached at 714-532-2222 (Orange) or 916-444-0777 (Sacramento).

[1] According to the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission, "...The main hazard from hot tubs and spas is the same as that from pools – drowning. Since 1980, CPSC has reports of more than 700 deaths in spas and hot tubs. About one-third of those were drownings to children under age five. Consumers should keep a locked safety cover on the spa whenever it is not in use and keep children away unless there is constant adult supervision. Hot Tub Temperatures – CPSC knows of several deaths from extremely hot water (approximately 110 degrees Fahrenheit) in a spa. High temperatures can cause drowsiness which may lead to unconsciousness, resulting in drowning. In addition, raised body temperature can lead to heat stroke and death. In 1987, CPSC helped develop requirements for temperature controls to make sure that spa water temperatures never exceed 104 degrees Fahrenheit. Pregnant women and young children should not use a spa before consulting with a physician. ... "CPSC Document #5112 "Spas, Hot Tubs, and Whirlpools Safety Alert".

[2] Municipal curfew regulations abound which restrict children. Los Angeles is typical. No one under 18 years of age is permitted in public places during school hours (" ... present in or upon the public streets, ... or any place open to the public during the hours of 8:30 am and 1:30 pm"). L.A.M.C. 45.04. The same restrictions apply after 10 pm. ("... any minor under the age of eighteen years to be present in or upon any public street, ... between the hours of 10:00 pm on any day and sunrise of the immediately following day; ...."). L.A.M.C. 45.03. Regulations for pool halls E.g. 17 (Midland Mi. Mun. Code Sec. 15-34) and 18 (1063-B. Pool halls. Public Laws of Maine) year age requirement), are commonly promulgated for the health and safety concerns for minors. It is unsafe for a park owner to rely on local or state laws in this respect in drafting rules and regulations.

[3] "[P]edestrian injury is the second leading cause of unintentional injury-related death among children ages 5 to 14. While the majority of pedestrian deaths and injuries are traffic-related, children ages 0 to 2 are more likely to suffer non-traffic-related pedestrian injuries, including those occurring in driveways, parking lots or on sidewalks. Although pedestrian injuries are not as common as motor vehicle occupant injuries, a disproportionate number of the injuries sustained by child pedestrians are severe. Between 25 and 50 percent of child pedestrian injuries require hospital admission. Children ages 5 to 9 are at the greatest risk from traffic–related pedestrian death and injury. Nearly one-third of all children ages 5 to 9 who are killed in traffic crashes are pedestrians").

[4] According to the U.S. Products Safety Commission: "The U. S. Consumer Product Safety Commission estimates that between 1985 and 1989, the latest period for which data are available, there were 1,200 amputations of children's fingers because of contact with exercise bikes. Most children were under the age of five. Many of the injuries occurred when the child's fingers touched the moving bike wheel or the chain and sprocket assembly. The Commission is concerned about the severity of injuries to children, especially because the hazard may not be obvious. Therefore, the commission warns parents always to keep children away from exercise bikes. Never use a bike without a chain guard, and when not using the bike, store it where children cannot get to it. Children's fingers can be amputated if they touch moving parts of exercise bike." Prevent Finger Amputations to Children From Exercise Bikes: Safety Alert: CPSC Document #5028.

[5] For example, educational material exist which explain that young children have peripheral vision which is two-thirds that of an adult; they have difficulty determining the source of sounds; traffic noises and sirens may be confusing; they may not understand that an automobile may seriously hurt or kill them; most children cannot understand a complex chain of events; children believe that all grownups will look out for them; they think that if they can see an adult driving a car toward them, the driver must be able to see them; children often mix fantasy with reality – they may give themselves superhuman powers and o not understand that a moving vehicle can hurt them; they have difficulty judging the speed and distance of oncoming vehicles. 

The FHAA

In 1988, Congress amended the Fair Housing Act (FHA) to prohibit not just discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, disability, or national origin, but also included familial status discrimination. Familial status is defined as " one or more individuals (who have not attained the age of 18 years) being domiciled with ... a parent or another person having legal custody of such individual or individuals."

Among other provisions, it is unlawful:

"To discriminate against any persons in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith, because of ... familial status ..."

Thus, a restriction on access or use of common facilities and amenities bases on age of a child (familial status) is a violation of the FHAA, absent compelling business necessity. Any such rule must be proved to be the least restrictive means to achieving a health and safety justification. What does this legalese mean to the community owner in practical terms? A full-blown trial, risks of heavy penalties, damages, and attorney's fees and costs. This is because there is no bright line test for any age-restrictive regulation: the law is bereft of any standards or guidance to make a reasonable, predictable risk-assessment or likelihood of success. Each case depends on the facts and surrounding circumstances. In other words, each case is a test-case. In sum, the penalties are so severe that prudent counsel would admonish all to eliminate age-restrictive rules and regulations.

Children are as protected as any other protected class. Thus, a simple way to test a rule for FHA compliance is this: insert any other protected class in the place of "children" when testing a rule and regulation. For example, a common past rule (and no longer a valid one) is "all children under 14 years of age must be accompanied by an adult resident when in the pool area." Then, how does this sound: "All Methodists must be accompanied by an adult resident ...." Obviously, such a rule is patently violative of the FHA.

It is also a violation of the FHAA to express to agents, brokers, employees, prospective sellers, or renters a preference, (e.g. "... gosh, if I had my druthers, I would rather not rent to families"). Another issue is use of selective advertisements, or denying information about housing opportunities to particular segments of the housing market because of their race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or

national origin, (example, in an area overwhelmingly populated by non-English speakers, advertising only in English language publications). Other violations will be found where there are ads or statements made regarding applicants, including: "mature person;" stating an aversion to "families with children" or "teenagers in the building;" advertisements stating non more than "one child;" or, stating that the community owner does not "rent to children." Posting "Adult Community: at the entrance to a non-exempt community also violates the FHAA. Use of the word "adult" without more, constitutes a violation of the FHAA. There are no such thins as adult manufactured home communities, and use of the phrase is deemed to chill family applicants from applying for tenancy in them.

The various rules cited by the courts as impermissibly restricting access or denying the use of the communities' facilities and/or areas on the basis of age, included the following. If your rules contain any of the following restrictions, or any rules similar to them, it is strongly advised that a legal advisor conversant with the FHAA (and implanting regulations and judicial and administrative interpretations) be promptly consulted.

• Children under the age of fourteen (14) years old shall not be allowed to ride a bicycle on the community streets without the accompaniment of an adult registered to the manufactured home in which they reside;
• Children under the age of eight (8) years old must be confined to a play area in the rear fenced yard of the family residence;
• Children shall not be allowed to play on community streets, or in any other common are areas; Residents under the age of eighteen (18) years old shall not be permitted to use the recreation building (clubhouse) or any other recreational facilities without the accompaniment of an adult registered to the manufactured home in which they reside;
• Residents under the age of eighteen (18) years old must be accompanied by the registered resident adult from the same household in order to use any of the recreational facilities or recreational building (clubhouse);
• Residents and visitors under the age of eighteen (18) years old may use the swimming pool and sun deck during the hours of 10 a.m. to 12 p.m. (noon) every day. Residents and visitors under the age of eighteen (18) years old are not permitted around the pool or sun deck after 12 noon;Residents and visitors under the age of eighteen (18) years old are not permitted to use the saunas or therapeutic jet pool at any time;
• Children under the age of fourteen (14) years old must be accompanied by a registered resident adult to be allowed to ride a bicycle in the community streets;The adult resident host must accompany all guests of their manufactured home who use the recreation building (clubhouse) or any of the recreational facilities of the community;
• Children under the age of fourteen (14) years old must be accompanied by the registered resident adult from the same household in order to use any of the recreational facilities or recreational building (clubhouse);
• When using the clubhouse, persons under ten (10) years old must be accompanied by an adult resident;
• Use of the billiards room was restricted to residents over eighteen (18) years old;
• Use of the spa was prohibited to children under eighteen (18) years old;
• Use of the pool by children fourteen (14) years old and under required accompaniment by a resident;
• Bicycle riding by anyone is prohibited unless accompanied by adult resident parent or adult host;
• Parent or resident child or resident host must accompany children at all times in the pool or pool area.
• Guests and residents under the age of eighteen (18) years old are permitted to use the swimming pool and sun deck from the hours of 9 a.m. to 12 noon only and must be accompanied by the parent or resident child or resident host;
• No one under the age of eighteen (18) years old is permitted in the billiard room at any time;
• No one under the age of fourteen (14) years old is allowed to use the Jacuzzi;
• At 2 p.m. children are to be out of the pool area;
• Children are not to walk around the community without adult supervision;
• Minors under sixteen (16) years old are not permitted in the therapeutic pool;
• For safety, children are not to ride bicycles, roller skate, skateboard, play in the street, play in RV storage, plan in car wash or wander around the community;
• Children under with (8) years old shall be confided to a play area in the rear fenced yard of the family residence.

The court held that these rules were not based on compelling business necessity and did not represent the least restrictive intrusions on familial status rights in promoting a health and safety interest. Having held that these rules were unlawful, the issues remaining for trial in the Plaza Mobile Estates case included damages, punitive damages, civil penalties, injunctive relief and attorney's fees and costs for the private plaintiffs.

While the action had been brought as a class claim (in which all of possibly thousands of affected residents could have been included in damages awards), class certification efforts were defeated, allowing only the named parties to seek damages.

The court's comments regarding the invalidation of these rules is telling and troubling. The court stated the age-restrictive rules were facially discriminatory. In other words, no matter how administered, the rules were invalid as drafted. Even if never enforced , such rules might dissuade a prospective applicant from applying for tenancy. These rules "...treat children, and thus, families with children differently and less favorably than adults-only households." "Describ[ing] parks as 'adult' parks are clear examples of illegal steering. Although they are not outright refusals to sell or rent or families with children, they indicate a preference for adults only and certainly discourage families with children from applying."

Considering the various age restrictive rules, they fall into three categories: (1) absolute prohibitions, (2) adult supervision requirements, and (3) hours of access restrictions.

Absolute prohibitions

The absolute prohibitions include those rules that (1) prohibit all children under 18 (or 21) years old from using the billiard room and from riding bicycles, (2) prohibit all children under 16 (or 18) years old from using the therapeutic pool, (3) prohibit all children under 14 (or 18) years old from using the sauna or Jacuzzi, (4) require all children under 8 years old to be confined to rear fenced yard of family residence, and (5) prohibit all children from playing on community streets and any other common areas.

The court held that absolute prohibitions such as the foregoing are illegal. The regulations are not the least restrictive means to achieve health and safety objectives ("...prohibiting all 'children' from playing in common areas ... cannot be justified"). The same applies with the billiard room ("... it is unclear how a 17-year-old's access to a billiard room is any more hazardous to ... health or safety that a 22-year-old's access").

Supervision restrictions

The fundamental premise adopted by the court is that "[A]ny concerns that defendants may have are not necessarily linked to age, and any concerns about problem behavior can be address with the use of rules." Thus, the court invalidated blanket prohibitions of all 15-year-olds from using the therapeutic pool and all 13-year-olds from using the sauna or Jacuzzi

In certain instances adult supervision might less restrictively advance health and safety concerns ("assuming arguendo that defendants' concerns were more logically linked to the age restrictions, requiring adult supervision rather than imposing an absolute ban is clearly a less restrictive means ..."). But where to set the limit is uncertain. California regulations state:

"Where no lifeguard service is provided, a warning sign shall be placed in plain view and shall state 'Warning - No Lifeguard on Duty' with clearly legible letters at least 10.2 centimeters (4 inches) high. In addition, the sign shall also state 'Children Under the Age of 14 Should not Use Pool Without an Adult in Attendance."

Based on the Plaza Mobile Estates decision, it is needlessly legally risky to impose any supervision requirement. Clearly, a 14 year age limit for an adult supervision is not enforceable, not legal, and constitutes a violation of the FHA, despite former administrative decisions suggesting the contrary and California regulations cited above. Yet, the need for an age limit is strikingly clear. The same rule applies to use of spas and whirlpools. Certainly an adult supervision requirement should be reasonable[1], but eh court has ruled that such concerns are fro the parents, not the management.

A few apparently unassailable precepts

Given that this case raises many more questions than it answers, the ability to promulgate and rely on age-restrictive rules for access and supervision are certainly less than a matter of clarity. While the previous rulings concerning the enforceability of age-restrictive rules are in some doubt, a few precepts can be stated with some reliability. The first is that an outright prohibition of use or access to any facility or amenity cannot be allowed. Setting up selected hours for usage of a facility of amenity cannot be allowed. Less certain is the ability to promulgate rules requiring adult supervision of children of varying ages for use of facilities or amenities. It would appear that no supervision can be mandated for areas such as clubhouse, billiard room, library or common areas.

Establishing minimum age requirements for supervision: A foray into the uncertain

The "14 and under" requirement of California regulations for pool supervision is a should not a must provision. Hence, management cannot require supervision of 14 years of age and under. The only clearly legal position is not to require supervision, and let it be for the parents to take personal accountability and responsibility for their children. The court makes this statement:

"... there is nothing magical about the age 18 or 14 years old if defendants' concerns are for the protection of the health and safety of the children or other residents in using recreational facilities or the swimming pool or riding bicycles. Such concerns could be addressed with the use of rules. Moreover, rather than being connected to such ages, bicycle and pool safety would be better served with a proficiency requirement."

The courts have intervened on occasion to require discrimination against children for their own good and government does so all the time. For example, you cannot vote until you are 18, drink alcohol until you are 21, cannot drive until you are 16.[2] However, housing providers subject to the FHA may not rely on or use the same governmentally-established restrictions in developing their rules and regulations despite the dangers posed by the common area facilities.

Another example: Pedestrian injuries are the second greatest cause of harm to children from five to 14 years of age. See the National Safe Kids Campaign Bicycle Injury Fact Sheet, September, 1997.[3] However, it is illegal to have a rule and regulations which states that "children are not to walk around the community without adult supervision."

Is it unreasonable to require adult supervision within the common areas of a manufactured home community? It would seem that such a rule is reasonable. However, for a community owner, such a rule violates the FHA. On the other hand the Consumer Products safety Commission urges supervision of children while on a playground for example (Consumer Product Safety Commission, Public Playground Safety Checklist, CPSC Document #327: "10. Carefully supervised children on playgrounds to make sure they're safe"). The federal law states that the parents are responsible for their children, not the management.

Previously sustained rules

The courts have previously allowed the following rules. This information may be largely historical at this juncture, for it remains unclear whether or not they remain viable in light of the Plaza Mobile Estates decision (these rules were sustained under the previous "reasonableness" test, not the "compelling interest" basis test):

1. Rules which bar use of a pool for children fourteen (14) years of age and less have been upheld because the prohibition implements legislative policy. HUD v. Paradise Gardens, HUDALJ 04-90-0321-1, 1992 WL 406531 (HUDALJ Oct. 15, 1992)
2. A rule which required children under the age of fifteen (15) years to be accompanied by an adult who is at least eighteen (18) years old when using the swimming pool and exercise equipment. (HUD vs. Trace Corporation 1995 WL 434221 (H.U.D.A.L.J.)(Consent decree)).
3. Rules have been sustained for age restricted access as to power tools. "...Respondents may keep the machine shop with industrial power tools accessible only to tenants who are at least fifteen (15) years of age and may require tenant children between the ages of fifteen (15) and eighteen (18) years to be accompanied by an adult who is at least eighteen (18) years old when using the machine shop. Further, Respondent may require all users of the machine shop to hve complete training on the proper use of such tools." (HUD vs. Trace Corporation, 1995 WL 434221 (H.U.D.A.L.J.)(Consent decree)).]\
4. In the unpublished decision of United States v. Town Hall Terrace Association, 1997 WL 128353 (W.D.N.Y. 1997), the housing provider made available four pieces of exercise equipment: a multi-purpose with lifting machine, a stationary bicycle, an inclining board and a rowing machine - in its "the fitness center." Until 1992 an express policy restricted the use of the fitness center and its equipment to persons at least eighteen (18) years old. After mid-1992, this threshold was lowered to sixteen (16).[4]
5. One case allowed for a rule requiring adult supervision of children six (6) and under while biking in a street. U.S. v. M. Westland Co., CV 93-4141, Fair Housing-Fair Lending 15,941 (HUD ALJ 1994)). Another authority states that no child should be permitted in a street on a bicycle until at least ten (10) years of age. ("Cycling should be restricted to sidewalks and paths until a child is age 10 and able to show how well he or she rides and observes the basic rules of the road. Parental and adult supervision is essential and until the traffic skills and judgment thresholds are reached by each child." The National Safe Kids Campaign Bicycle Injury Fact Sheet, September, 1997).

But under the more recent Plaza Mobile Estates decision, the past allowances provide no basis on which to write your rules and regulations.

Don't blame the court!

However, it is too much to criticize or impugn the court for adhering to the letter of the law, and not legislating by "judicial fiat." The court interprets what the law is and does not legislate. That is the job of Congress and more pointedly in this case HUD (in its rule-making powers). The FHA prohibits discrimination, period. The federal law makes NO exceptions; exceptions to familial status rights is the job of HUD. It is not the court's duty. The court is not the Legislature.

The need for uniform guidelines to inform the housing providers of permissible restrictions

HUD should provide guidance for housing providers and establish bright line tests for common sense age-restrictive rules. HUD should defer to other legislative judgments made for child protection by allowing community owners to replicate existing laws in their rules and regulations. Model regulations for protection of the young could be published. HUD could establish a rule pre-approval procedure.

Community owners just want to comply with the law and provide reasonable requirements for protection of children. But now, even experienced lawyers cannot intelligibly predict the enforceability of any age-restrictive rules. At this time, attaining any ascribed legitimacy of a rule only follows after an expensive legal defense with a heavy burden of proof requiring compelling business necessity. A conciliation agreement binds the complainant. If another resident complains the next day, the conciliation agreement is worthless as a defense to the rule. This is an inconceivably inefficient manner of testing rule validity. The costs to business in such concerns vastly outweigh the benefit to be achieved. The cost to the consumer in spreading the expense of this exercise could be largely obviated if the housing provider had some guidance in defining acceptable rules for promotion of health and safety. The suggestion of administering proficiency tests is a null and void concept. The liability for negligently administering such tests, seeking and paying for qualified testers, and then excluding the non-proficient residents will not be pursued by a single housing provider.

What can we do? Even in the absence of specific rules, educational materials may help parents understand common risks associated with youth. When educational information is provided as an adjunct to an activity rather than a rule restricting an activity, the chance of a claim of discriminatory preference is less likely to be made. For example, when a community owner offers such educational material from organizations who seek better protection of children, (e.g., police departments, charitable organizations, etc.) the community owner is providing a service - disseminating information and facts - not discriminating against children.[5]

You may also consider consulting with HUD in advance of amending rules and regulations. IF HUD even informally opines that a proposed policy is not defensible, or that no comment can be offered, at least the community owner can better assess the risk faced with a new rule and regulation. For example, if a resident complains that a particular resident who has open sores due to infection with the AIDS virus desires to use the swimming pool, can the management require that resident to stay out of the pool?

When faced with the question, the manger called to advise that she was not sure how to proceed. While administrative regulations require a doctor's letter stating that no public health or safety risk was posed by the patient's use of the pool, I consulted with HUD before announcing the management policy.

Finally

All the community owner wants is to know what the law is! What we do know is certain rules, certain practices reflecting what the law is not. But it is grossly unfair to relegate the duty to set standards on management. Having read this article, can you now, safely amend your rules to impose such a rule? No. No attorney can give an absolute assurance that such a rule will be sustained until ruled valid in a court. Until a court actually rules on the validity of the rule, or HUD or DFEH offers guidance on their interpretation of the rule, there can be no assurance of what an will not be permitted in developing age-restrictive rules and regulations. The best policy is to eliminate any and all age restrictive rules and regulations to avoid FHA claims.

Reprinted with permission from Western Manufactured Housing Communities Association (WMA) "Reporter", June 2008.

Terry Dowdall has specialized in manufactured home communities' law since 1978. His firm, Dowdall Law Office, APC is located in Orange County and Sacramento, with a practice limited exclusively to the manufactured housing industry. Mr. Dowdall serves as a legal advisor on WMA's Legislative Committee and has authored publications for the Continuing Legal Education of the State Bar. He is a frequent contributor to the WMA Reporter and facilitator at WMA educational seminars. He can be reached at 714-532-2222 (Orange) or 916-444-0777 (Sacramento).

[1] According to the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission, "...The main hazard from hot tubs and spas is the same as that from pools - drowning. Since 1980, CPSC has reports of more than 700 deaths in spas and hot tubs. About one-third of those were drownings to children under age five. Consumers should keep a locked safety cover on the spa whenever it is not in use and keep children away unless there is constant adult supervision. Hot Tub Temperatures - CPSC knows of several deaths from extremely hot water (approximately 110 degrees Fahrenheit) in a spa. High temperatures can cause drowsiness which may lead to unconsciousness, resulting in drowning. In addition, raised body temperature can lead to heat stroke and death. In 1987, CPSC helped develop requirements for temperature controls to make sure that spa water temperatures never exceed 104 degrees Fahrenheit. Pregnant women and young children should not use a spa before consulting with a physician. ... "CPSC Document #5112 "Spas, Hot Tubs, and Whirlpools Safety Alert".

[2] Municipal curfew regulations abound which restrict children. Los Angeles is typical. No one under 18 years of age is permitted in public places during school hours (" ... present in or upon the public streets, ... or any place open to the public during the hours of 8:30 am and 1:30 pm"). L.A.M.C. 45.04. The same restrictions apply after 10 pm. ("... any minor under the age of eighteen years to be present in or upon any public street, ... between the hours of 10:00 pm on any day and sunrise of the immediately following day; ...."). L.A.M.C. 45.03. Regulations for pool halls E.g. 17 (Midland Mi. Mun. Code Sec. 15-34) and 18 (1063-B. Pool halls. Public Laws of Maine) year age requirement), are commonly promulgated for the health and safety concerns for minors. It is unsafe for a park owner to rely on local or state laws in this respect in drafting rules and regulations.

[3] "[P]edestrian injury is the second leading cause of unintentional injury-related death among children ages 5 to 14. While the majority of pedestrian deaths and injuries are traffic-related, children ages 0 to 2 are more likely to suffer non-traffic-related pedestrian injuries, including those occurring in driveways, parking lots or on sidewalks. Although pedestrian injuries are not as common as motor vehicle occupant injuries, a disproportionate number of the injuries sustained by child pedestrians are severe. Between 25 and 50 percent of child pedestrian injuries require hospital admission. Children ages 5 to 9 are at the greatest risk from traffic-related pedestrian death and injury. Nearly one-third of all children ages 5 to 9 who are killed in traffic crashes are pedestrians").

[4] According to the U.S. Products Safety Commission: "The U. S. Consumer Product Safety Commission estimates that between 1985 and 1989, the latest period for which data are available, there were 1,200 amputations of children's fingers because of contact with exercise bikes. Most children were under the age of five. Many of the injuries occurred when the child's fingers touched the moving bike wheel or the chain and sprocket assembly. The Commission is concerned about the severity of injuries to children, especially because the hazard may not be obvious. Therefore, the commission warns parents always to keep children away from exercise bikes. Never use a bike without a chain guard, and when not using the bike, store it where children cannot get to it. Children's fingers can be amputated if they touch moving parts of exercise bike." Prevent Finger Amputations to Children From Exercise Bikes: Safety Alert: CPSC Document #5028.

[5] For example, educational material exist which explain that young children have peripheral vision which is two-thirds that of an adult; they have difficulty determining the source of sounds; traffic noises and sirens may be confusing; they may not understand that an automobile may seriously hurt or kill them; most children cannot understand a complex chain of events; children believe that all grownups will look out for them; they think that if they can see an adult driving a car toward them, the driver must be able to see them; children often mix fantasy with reality - they may give themselves superhuman powers and o not understand that a moving vehicle can hurt them; they have difficulty judging the speed and distance of oncoming vehicles. 

Fair housing law generally prohibits discrimination based on familial status, but there’s a limited exception that applies to senior housing communities that qualify as “housing for older persons.” To qualify, senior housing communities must meet strict technical requirements. Unless they satisfy those requirements, communities may not enforce “adult only” policies or impose age restrictions to keep children from living there.

The focus of this article is on federal law, but it’s important to check the law in your state governing senior housing communities. The specifics may vary, but you could draw unwanted attention from state enforcement agencies if you exclude families with children without satisfying legal requirements to qualify for the senior housing exemption.

Example: In January 2019, the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) announced a $10,000 settlement in a fair housing complaint alleging familial status discrimination against the owners of a six-unit rental community and a residential real estate brokerage firm that managed the property.

Fair housing advocates filed the complaint, alleging that the property was advertised online as an “adult complex” and included a restriction of “maximum 2 adults.” During a follow-up call, the property manager reportedly told a tester that children weren’t allowed. DFEH found that the complex wasn’t a senior citizen housing development and that there was cause to believe a violation of state fair housing law had occurred.

“In California, senior housing developments can, with some exceptions, exclude residents under 55 years of age if they have at least 35 units and meet other requirements,” DFEH Director Kevin Kish said in a statement. “All other rental properties violate the law if they categorically exclude families with minor children. By identifying such policies through testing, fair housing organizations such as Project Sentinel play an important role in ensuring that families with children have access to housing.” 

WHAT DOES THE LAW SAY?

The Fair Housing Act (FHA) bans housing discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, familial status, or disability—what’s known as “protected classes.”

Congress added familial status to the list of federally protected classes when it amended the FHA in 1988. In a nutshell, the familial status provisions make it unlawful to discriminate against applicants or residents because they have, or expect to have, a child under 18 in the household. Specifically, the FHA’s ban on discrimination based on familial status apply to one or more children under 18 living with:

• A parent;
• An individual with legal custody; or
• An individual who has the written permission of the parent or custodian.

The familial status provisions also apply to pregnant woman and anyone in the process of securing legal custody of one or more children under 18.

Nevertheless, Congress recognized the need to preserve housing specifically designed to meet the needs of senior citizens. Consequently, the 1988 amendment created an exemption from the FHA’s familial status requirements for communities that qualified as “housing for older persons.” Congress later amended the law in the Housing for Older Persons Act of 1995 (HOPA), resulting in the current version of the federal exemption for senior housing.

The exemption allows senior housing communities that meet specific requirements to legally exclude families with children. The exemption applies to housing communities or facilities, which are governed by a common set of rules, regulations, or restrictions. A portion of a single building isn’t considered a housing facility or community, according to HUD. The senior housing exemption applies only to the FHA’s familial status provisions; communities must still abide by the law’s protections based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, and disability.

The law describes three types of communities that are eligible for the senior housing exemption:

• Publicly funded senior housing communities: Housing communities where HUD has determined that the dwelling is specifically designed for and occupied by elderly persons under a federal, state, or local government program;
• 62-and-older communities: Communities intended for, and occupied solely by, persons who are 62 or older; and
• 55-and-older communities: Communities that house at least one person who is 55 or older in at least 80 percent of the occupied units and adheres to a policy that demonstrates intent to house persons who are 55 or older.

7 RULES TO FOLLOW TO AVOID FAIR HOUSING TROUBLE

IN SENIOR HOUSING COMMUNITIES

Rule #1: Comply with Technical Requirements for Senior Housing Exemption

Senior communities must adopt policies and procedures to ensure strict compliance with the technical requirements of the senior housing exemption. If you don’t comply with the law’s requirements, then you lose the exemption, which in essence makes your community automatically liable for excluding or discriminating against families with children. 

Complying with the law governing the 62-and-older exemption is relatively straightforward. To qualify, the community must be intended for and occupied solely by persons aged 62 and older. For example, HUD regulations explain that a 62-and-older community would have to refuse the application of a 62-year-old man whose wife is 59. In the same vein, a community would lose its exemption if it allowed continued residency by a current resident who married someone under the age of 62.

Complying with the law governing the 55-and-older exemption is more complicated. To qualify, the community must satisfy each of the following requirements:

• At least 80 percent of the occupied units must have at least one occupant who is 55 years of age or older;
• The community must publish and adhere to policies and procedures that demonstrate the intent to operate as “55 or older” housing; and
• The community must comply with HUD’s regulatory requirements for age verification of residents.

1. 80 percent rule. To meet this requirement, a community must ensure that at least one person 55 or older lives in 80 percent of its occupied units. The law doesn’t restrict the ages of the other occupants in those units. Furthermore, there are no age limits for the occupants of the other 20 percent, so communities may accept families with children, although they don’t have to do so.

The 80 percent rule applies to the percentage of “occupied units,” which includes temporarily vacant units if the primary occupant has resided in the unit during the past year and intends to return on a periodic basis. That means that a unit would count toward the 80 percent requirement if its 55-year-old occupant resided in the unit for only part of each year.

To maintain eligibility for the exemption, it’s a good idea to ensure that more than 80 percent of your occupied units are occupied by at least one person aged 55 or older. If you skate too close to the line, your community could be forced into a difficult situation—for example, if a 60-year-old resident dies, leaving a 54-year-old surviving spouse.

To prevent just such a problem, HUD advises communities to plan with care when renting the 20 percent portion of the remaining units to incoming households under age 55. Such planning should address notice to incoming households under the age of 55 regarding how the community will proceed in the event that the 80 percent requirement is threatened.

2. Intent to operate as senior housing. A community must publish and adhere to policies and procedures that demonstrate its intent to operate as housing for persons 55 years of age or older. HUD offers some examples of the types of policies and procedures to satisfy this requirement, including:

• The written rules, regulations, lease provisions, or other restrictions;
• The actual practices of the community used to enforce the rules;
• The kind of advertising used to attract prospective residents to the community as well as the manner in which the community is described to prospective residents; and
• The community’s age-verification procedures and its ability to produce, in response to a familial status complaint, verification of required occupancy.

3. Verification of occupancy. To qualify under the 55-and-older exemption, communities must able to produce verification of compliance with the 80 percent rule through reliable surveys and affidavits.

HUD regulations require communities to develop procedures to routinely determine the occupancy of each unit, including the identification of whether at least one occupant is 55 or older. The procedures may be part of the normal leasing arrangement. And, every two years, communities must update, through surveys or other means, the initial information to verify that the unit is occupied by at least one resident age 55 or older.

In addition, communities must establish procedures to verify the age of the occupants in units occupied by persons 55 and older through reliable documentation, such as birth certificates, driver’s licenses, passports, immigration cards, military identification, and other official documents that show a birth date. HUD regulations also allow a certification signed by any member of the household aged 18 or older asserting that at least one person in the unit is 55 or older.

Rule #2: Market Your Community as Senior Housing

For 55+ communities, it’s essential to ensure that your advertising and marketing doesn’t undercut your ability to qualify for the senior housing exemption.

To qualify for the senior exemption, the law requires communities to demonstrate an intent to provide housing for older persons. The manner in which your community is described to potential residents is among the relevant factors listed in HUD regulations to determine whether a community has complied with the intent requirement. Using the wrong words to describe yourself not only may trigger a fair housing complaint, but also undercut your ability to demonstrate your intent to operate as “55 or older” housing.

As an example, fair housing expert Doug Chasick points to the increasing number of housing developments that market themselves as “Active Adult” or “Empty Nester” communities. Yet, he points out, using the term “Adult Only” housing was outlawed back in 1988, when President Reagan signed amendments to the FHA into law. He says that some state and local enforcement agencies claim that using these phrases are always illegal because they’re incompatible with the intent requirement.

HUD doesn’t take it that far. It’s true that HUD regulations state that “Phrases such as “adult living,” “adult community,” or similar statements in any written advertisement or prospectus are not consistent with the intent that the housing facility or community intends to operate as housing for persons 55 years of age or older. But HUD says that the use of these terms does not, by itself, destroy the community’s ability to meet the intent requirement, according to HUD. If a facility or community has clearly shown in other ways that it intends to operate as housing for older persons, meets the 80 percent requirement, and has in place age verification procedures, then HUD says that the intent requirement can be met even if the term “adult” is occasionally used to describe it.

That’s not to say that Chasick says it’s a good idea to use those terms in your advertising or marketing materials. In fact, he recommends against it unless you want to be caught up in an expensive investigation or enforcement action. Instead, Chasick recommends using words like “senior housing,” “senior living community,” “a 55 and older community,” or even a “55 and Better Community” when describing your community to demonstrate your intent to operate as housing for older persons.

Rule #3: Don’t Discriminate Based on Race or Other Protected Characteristics

The FHA’s senior housing exemption is limited: It offers protection from federal fair housing claims based upon familial status as long as your community meets the FHA’s requirements to qualify as housing for older persons. It doesn’t exempt senior housing communities from any claims based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, or disability, or other characteristic protected under state or local law.

That means that senior communities must take steps not only to qualify under the senior housing exemption, but also to ensure they don’t exclude or otherwise discriminate against applicants or residents based on race or other protected characteristic. For example, senior communities must adopt nondiscriminatory policies and procedures governing the application process and treatment of residents in addition to complying with the age-verification and other requirements to qualify for the senior housing exemption. And train your staff to apply those policies consistently to all applicants and residents, regardless of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, or disability, or other characteristic protected under state or local law.

Rule #4: Enforce Rules to Prevent Harassment by or Against Residents

Take steps to enforce rules to prevent harassment or other misconduct by or against residents. If a resident complains about being harassed by other residents based on her race, sex, or any other protected class, then you should take the complaints seriously.

You shouldn’t be expected to police the behavior of your residents, but you should make it clear that bullying or any other forms of harassment based on protected characteristics won’t be tolerated. Depending on the circumstances, you could face liability under fair housing law if you knew that a resident was subjected to severe and persistent abuse from other residents, but you did nothing to stop it.

Example: In August 2018, a federal court reinstated a fair housing case against an Illinois retirement community for harassment and retaliation. The complaint alleged that the resident endured months of physical and verbal abuse by other residents because of her sexual orientation, and that despite her complaints, the community did nothing to stop it and in fact, retaliated against her because of her complaints.

Fair housing law prohibits discriminatory harassment that creates a hostile housing environment. To prove the claim, the resident had to prove that: (1) she endured unwelcome harassment based on a protected characteristic; (2) the harassment was severe or pervasive enough to interfere with her tenancy; and (3) there was reason to hold the community responsible.

The resident’s complaint satisfied the first and second requirements. She alleged that she was subjected to unwelcome harassment based on her sex, and the community agreed that the court’s earlier ruling—that employment discrimination based on sexual orientation qualifies as discrimination based on sex—applied equally to housing discrimination claims. And the alleged harassment could be viewed as both severe and pervasive—for 15 months, she was bombarded with threats, slurs, derisive comments about her families, physical violence, and spit.

The complaint also satisfied the third requirement. When the case goes back for further proceedings, the focus will be on the management defendants to determine whether they had actual knowledge of the severe harassment that the resident was enduring and whether they were deliberately indifferent to it. If so, then they subjected the resident to conduct that the FHA forbids [Wetzel v. Glen St. Andrew Living Community, August 2018].

Rule #5: Watch for Potential Disability Discrimination Claims

Senior housing communities must pay particular attention to fair housing protections for individuals with disabilities. The FHA prohibits communities from excluding individuals with disabilities or discriminating against them in the terms, conditions, and privileges of the tenancy.

Example: In December 2018, the owners and operators of a California senior housing complex agreed to pay $2,500 to resolve claims that they violated state fair housing laws by denying housing to a prospective resident because she has a disability.

In her complaint, the prospect alleged that the property manager initially approved her tenancy application but rescinded the approval after meeting her and seeing that she uses a wheelchair. The prospect’s daughter had handled most aspects of the application process, including viewing the unit. When the prospect arrived in a wheelchair to sign the lease, the property manager allegedly refused to rent her the unit and accused her and her daughter of misrepresenting the prospect’s identity by bringing other individuals to view the unit.

“The Fair Employment and Housing Act promises that all tenants, regardless of disability, have equal access to housing,” Kevin Kish, Director of the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing, in a statement. “Housing providers have a legal obligation to eliminate unlawful bias from every stage of the housing application process.”

Fair housing law bans discrimination against applicants and residents because they—or someone they’re associated with—is a member of a protected class. HUD says that the FHA’s disability provisions were intended to prohibit not only discrimination against the named tenant, “but also to prohibit denial or housing opportunities to applicants because they have children, parents, friends, spouses, roommates, patients, subtenants or other associates with disabilities.”

Example: In December 2018, HUD announced that a New Jersey condo association representing residents of a 55-and-older condominium development has settled a complaint alleging that it refused to sell a condo to a man with disabilities and his wife because the couple planned to have their adult disabled daughter live with them. The settlement requires the association to pay a $9,000 civil penalty to the United States, undergo fair housing training, and make changes to the associations’ bylaws as they relate to reasonable accommodations. The wife, now a widow, is pursuing claims against the association in state court. The association denies that it discriminated against the family.

“No family whose members have disabilities should be denied the reasonable accommodations they need to make a home for themselves,” Anna María Farías, HUD’s Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, said in a statement. “Hopefully, today’s ruling will remind homeowner associations of their obligations under the Fair Housing Act and encourage them to follow the law” [Secretary, HUD v. Tamaron Association, December 2018].

Senior communities must be prepared to comply with the full array of disability protections. For example, the FHA requires communities to make reasonable accommodations to rules, policies, practices, or services to enable an individual with a disability to fully enjoy use of the property. The law also requires owners to permit residents with a disability, at their expense, to make reasonable modifications to the housing if necessary to afford them full enjoyment of the premises.

Example: In December 2017, the owner and property manager of a California community agreed to pay $11,000 to resolve a HUD complaint alleging disability discrimination against a resident with a mobility impairment. According to her complaint, the resident requested to have a live-in aide and a key to a locked gate near her unit to make it easier for her to come and go. In both instances, she said that the owner and property manager asked her intrusive questions about her disability, challenged whether she really had a disability, asserted that the development was for individuals who could live independently, and ultimately denied her requests.

“Residents with disabilities have the right to reasonable accommodations that allow them to use and enjoy their home, without unnecessary and invasive questioning,” Anna María Farías, HUD’s Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, said in a statement. “HUD will continue to work with housing providers to ensure they meet their obligation to comply with national fair housing laws.”

Example: In December 2018, the Fair Housing Justice Center (FHJC) announced that a settlement has been reached with the remaining defendants in two federal lawsuits against the operators of dozens of nursing homes and assisted living facilities for allegedly refusing to make American Sign Language (ASL) interpreter services available to deaf and hard-of-hearing residents. Though denying the allegations, the defendants in the latest settlement agreed to pay $245,675 in damages and attorney’s fees to resolve the case.

The FHJC says that the settlements in these cases ensures that deaf and hard-of-hearing people will have access to ASL services and other auxiliary aids and services as a reasonable accommodation in 61 nursing homes and 35 assisted living facilities in the New York City region. The settlement agreements reached with the defendants in these two cases also yielded a total monetary recovery of nearly $1.2 million in damages and attorney’s fees.

Rule #6: Review ‘Independent Living’ Requirements

Depending on the circumstances, you could face a fair housing complaint for imposing independent living requirements on applicants or residents. Courts have found that a policy requiring applicants to demonstrate an ability to live independently violates fair housing laws protecting individuals with disabilities [Cason v. Rochester Housing Authority, August 1990].

Example: In September 2017, the owner and managers of a 41-unit community in California agreed to pay $18,500 to resolve allegations of discrimination against elderly residents with disabilities who relied on support from caregivers. A fair housing organization filed the complaint on behalf of an elderly resident facing eviction after returning from the hospital with support from a part-time caregiver. Allegedly, the owner and property manager said that they didn’t want the “liability” of her remaining in her home, threatened to call the county to have her “removed,” ordered her to move out, and asked invasive questions about the extent of her disabilities. According to the organization’s complaint, its investigation corroborated the resident’s allegations and revealed that testers calling for disabled relatives were told that the complex was for “independent living” and people who “can take care of themselves.”

Example: In Michigan, fair housing advocates recently sued an affordable senior housing apartment complex, alleging that the community applies “independent living” requirements to force residents with disabilities to move, even if those residents are meeting all the requirements of the lease. The complaint asks the court to recognize the community’s practices as discriminatory and prevent the complex from forcing tenants with disabilities to leave their homes when they remain capable of meeting all of their lease obligations.

“Civil rights laws ensure that people with disabilities can decide for themselves where and how to live in the community of their choosing,” says Susan Silverstein, Senior Attorney at AARP Foundation. “The law doesn’t allow landlords to refuse to accommodate tenants with disabilities,” adds a lawyer for the Michigan Clinical Law Program, “and it certainly doesn’t allow landlords to refuse to let tenants age in place just because they might need some outside help.”

Example: And in New York, fair housing advocates and two individuals sued the state and four adult care facilities, alleging that they maintained and enforced blanket policies barring wheelchair users, regardless of their individual needs or abilities, and steered applicants who use wheelchairs to nursing homes.

One of the individual plaintiffs, an elderly woman with disabilities, alleged that she was barred from returning to one of the communities once she began using a wheelchair. According to the woman, the community tried to evict her because of an internal policy barring admission of people who use wheelchairs and state health department regulations that supported such policies at these and other facilities.

The lawsuit also alleges that New York State promotes disability discrimination through its regulations and policies, including its policy permitting adult homes to ban wheelchair users from admission. Until recently, state health department regulations stated that adult homes and assisted living programs should not admit or retain people who are “chronically chairfast.”

The state has since amended the regulations to eliminate the phrase “chronically chairfast” and to add language that operators may not exclude individuals solely because they primarily use a wheelchair for mobility and must make reasonable accommodations as necessary to comply with the law. Last fall, the court issued an order directing the community to allow the elderly woman to return to her home. The case is still pending in federal court.

Rule #7: Comply with Applicable State and Local Laws

It’s critical to review applicable state and local fair housing laws because the laws affecting senior housing may vary substantially, depending on your location. For example, HUD points out that federal fair housing law doesn’t cover age discrimination, which is a protected characteristic under some state and local fair housing laws.

Moreover, HUD notes that some state and local governments with fair housing laws that have been determined to be substantially similar to the federal law may not include an exemption from the familial status discrimination for housing for older persons.

Alternatively, some state or local laws impose different standards for the senior housing exemption. In California, for example, the legislature adopted more stringent requirements on senior housing than is required under the FHA “in recognition of the acute shortage of housing for families with children” in that state. The law imposes specific requirements related to accessibility, common areas, and refuse collection.

Still other state and local laws apply an older version of the federal exemption. Under the original 1988 legislation, 55-and-older communities had to have “significant facilities and services specifically designed to meet the physical or social needs of older persons” to qualify for the exemption.

Though Congress eliminated the “significant services and facilities” requirement from federal fair housing law, some states didn’t follow suit. In Georgia, for example, communities are still required to furnish “significant facilities and services specifically designed to meet the physical or social needs of older persons” to qualify for the senior housing exemption.

Tip: HUD urges communities to check all relevant state, local, and federal laws, as well as any requirements imposed as a term of governmental financial assistance before implementing policies and procedures that limit residents’ eligibility. Because of the complexity of the issues involved, you should get legal advice from an attorney well versed in the legal requirements for senior housing issues in your jurisdiction. 

By Terry R. Dowdall, Esq.

The federal Fair Housing Amendments Act (FHAA) of 1988 created a new protected class of "familial status." In California, the federal courts have addressed these requirements by ruling that "all age" communities may not discriminate against children, no more than management can discriminate against any other protected class. This article is addressed to the need for continuing concerns over rule and regulation content and enforcement. This guidance comes from a case brought against Plaza Mobile Estates, defended by this office.

The FHAA

In 1988, Congress amended the Fair Housing Act (FHA) to prohibit not just discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, disability, or national origin, but also included familial status discrimination. Familial status is defined as " one or more individuals (who have not attained the age of 18 years) being domiciled with ... a parent or another person having legal custody of such individual or individuals."

Among other provisions, it is unlawful:

"To discriminate against any persons in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith, because of ... familial status ..."

Thus, a restriction on access or use of common facilities and amenities bases on age of a child (familial status) is a violation of the FHAA, absent compelling business necessity. Any such rule must be proved to be the least restrictive means to achieving a health and safety justification. What does this legalese mean to the community owner in practical terms? A full-blown trial, risks of heavy penalties, damages, and attorney's fees and costs. This is because there is no bright line test for any age-restrictive regulation: the law is bereft of any standards or guidance to make a reasonable, predictable risk-assessment or likelihood of success. Each case depends on the facts and surrounding circumstances. In other words, each case is a test-case. In sum, the penalties are so severe that prudent counsel would admonish all to eliminate age-restrictive rules and regulations.

Children are as protected as any other protected class. Thus, a simple way to test a rule for FHA compliance is this: insert any other protected class in the place of "children" when testing a rule and regulation. For example, a common past rule (and no longer a valid one) is "all children under 14 years of age must be accompanied by an adult resident when in the pool area." Then, how does this sound: "All Methodists must be accompanied by an adult resident ...." Obviously, such a rule is patently violative of the FHA.

It is also a violation of the FHAA to express to agents, brokers, employees, prospective sellers, or renters a preference, (e.g. "... gosh, if I had my druthers, I would rather not rent to families"). Another issue is use of selective advertisements, or denying information about housing opportunities to particular segments of the housing market because of their race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or

national origin, (example, in an area overwhelmingly populated by non-English speakers, advertising only in English language publications). Other violations will be found where there are ads or statements made regarding applicants, including: "mature person;" stating an aversion to "families with children" or "teenagers in the building;" advertisements stating non more than "one child;" or, stating that the community owner does not "rent to children." Posting "Adult Community: at the entrance to a non-exempt community also violates the FHAA. Use of the word "adult" without more, constitutes a violation of the FHAA. There are no such thins as adult manufactured home communities, and use of the phrase is deemed to chill family applicants from applying for tenancy in them.

The various rules cited by the courts as impermissibly restricting access or denying the use of the communities' facilities and/or areas on the basis of age, included the following. If your rules contain any of the following restrictions, or any rules similar to them, it is strongly advised that a legal advisor conversant with the FHAA (and implanting regulations and judicial and administrative interpretations) be promptly consulted.

• Children under the age of fourteen (14) years old shall not be allowed to ride a bicycle on the community streets without the accompaniment of an adult registered to the manufactured home in which they reside;
• Children under the age of eight (8) years old must be confined to a play area in the rear fenced yard of the family residence;
• Children shall not be allowed to play on community streets, or in any other common are areas; Residents under the age of eighteen (18) years old shall not be permitted to use the recreation building (clubhouse) or any other recreational facilities without the accompaniment of an adult registered to the manufactured home in which they reside;
• Residents under the age of eighteen (18) years old must be accompanied by the registered resident adult from the same household in order to use any of the recreational facilities or recreational building (clubhouse);
• Residents and visitors under the age of eighteen (18) years old may use the swimming pool and sun deck during the hours of 10 a.m. to 12 p.m. (noon) every day. Residents and visitors under the age of eighteen (18) years old are not permitted around the pool or sun deck after 12 noon;Residents and visitors under the age of eighteen (18) years old are not permitted to use the saunas or therapeutic jet pool at any time;
• Children under the age of fourteen (14) years old must be accompanied by a registered resident adult to be allowed to ride a bicycle in the community streets;The adult resident host must accompany all guests of their manufactured home who use the recreation building (clubhouse) or any of the recreational facilities of the community;
• Children under the age of fourteen (14) years old must be accompanied by the registered resident adult from the same household in order to use any of the recreational facilities or recreational building (clubhouse);
• When using the clubhouse, persons under ten (10) years old must be accompanied by an adult resident;
• Use of the billiards room was restricted to residents over eighteen (18) years old;
• Use of the spa was prohibited to children under eighteen (18) years old;
• Use of the pool by children fourteen (14) years old and under required accompaniment by a resident;
• Bicycle riding by anyone is prohibited unless accompanied by adult resident parent or adult host;
• Parent or resident child or resident host must accompany children at all times in the pool or pool area.
• Guests and residents under the age of eighteen (18) years old are permitted to use the swimming pool and sun deck from the hours of 9 a.m. to 12 noon only and must be accompanied by the parent or resident child or resident host;
• No one under the age of eighteen (18) years old is permitted in the billiard room at any time;
• No one under the age of fourteen (14) years old is allowed to use the Jacuzzi;
• At 2 p.m. children are to be out of the pool area;
• Children are not to walk around the community without adult supervision;
• Minors under sixteen (16) years old are not permitted in the therapeutic pool;
• For safety, children are not to ride bicycles, roller skate, skateboard, play in the street, play in RV storage, plan in car wash or wander around the community;
• Children under with (8) years old shall be confided to a play area in the rear fenced yard of the family residence.

The court held that these rules were not based on compelling business necessity and did not represent the least restrictive intrusions on familial status rights in promoting a health and safety interest. Having held that these rules were unlawful, the issues remaining for trial in the Plaza Mobile Estates case included damages, punitive damages, civil penalties, injunctive relief and attorney's fees and costs for the private plaintiffs.

While the action had been brought as a class claim (in which all of possibly thousands of affected residents could have been included in damages awards), class certification efforts were defeated, allowing only the named parties to seek damages.

The court's comments regarding the invalidation of these rules is telling and troubling. The court stated the age-restrictive rules were facially discriminatory. In other words, no matter how administered, the rules were invalid as drafted. Even if never enforced , such rules might dissuade a prospective applicant from applying for tenancy. These rules "...treat children, and thus, families with children differently and less favorably than adults-only households." "Describ[ing] parks as 'adult' parks are clear examples of illegal steering. Although they are not outright refusals to sell or rent or families with children, they indicate a preference for adults only and certainly discourage families with children from applying."

Considering the various age restrictive rules, they fall into three categories: (1) absolute prohibitions, (2) adult supervision requirements, and (3) hours of access restrictions.

Absolute prohibitions

The absolute prohibitions include those rules that (1) prohibit all children under 18 (or 21) years old from using the billiard room and from riding bicycles, (2) prohibit all children under 16 (or 18) years old from using the therapeutic pool, (3) prohibit all children under 14 (or 18) years old from using the sauna or Jacuzzi, (4) require all children under 8 years old to be confined to rear fenced yard of family residence, and (5) prohibit all children from playing on community streets and any other common areas.

The court held that absolute prohibitions such as the foregoing are illegal. The regulations are not the least restrictive means to achieve health and safety objectives ("...prohibiting all 'children' from playing in common areas ... cannot be justified"). The same applies with the billiard room ("... it is unclear how a 17-year-old's access to a billiard room is any more hazardous to ... health or safety that a 22-year-old's access").

Supervision restrictions

The fundamental premise adopted by the court is that "[A]ny concerns that defendants may have are not necessarily linked to age, and any concerns about problem behavior can be address with the use of rules." Thus, the court invalidated blanket prohibitions of all 15-year-olds from using the therapeutic pool and all 13-year-olds from using the sauna or Jacuzzi

In certain instances adult supervision might less restrictively advance health and safety concerns ("assuming arguendo that defendants' concerns were more logically linked to the age restrictions, requiring adult supervision rather than imposing an absolute ban is clearly a less restrictive means ..."). But where to set the limit is uncertain. California regulations state:

"Where no lifeguard service is provided, a warning sign shall be placed in plain view and shall state 'Warning – No Lifeguard on Duty' with clearly legible letters at least 10.2 centimeters (4 inches) high. In addition, the sign shall also state 'Children Under the Age of 14 Should not Use Pool Without an Adult in Attendance."

Based on the Plaza Mobile Estates decision, it is needlessly legally risky to impose any supervision requirement. Clearly, a 14 year age limit for an adult supervision is not enforceable, not legal, and constitutes a violation of the FHA, despite former administrative decisions suggesting the contrary and California regulations cited above. Yet, the need for an age limit is strikingly clear. The same rule applies to use of spas and whirlpools. Certainly an adult supervision requirement should be reasonable[1], but eh court has ruled that such concerns are fro the parents, not the management.

A few apparently unassailable precepts

Given that this case raises many more questions than it answers, the ability to promulgate and rely on age-restrictive rules for access and supervision are certainly less than a matter of clarity. While the previous rulings concerning the enforceability of age-restrictive rules are in some doubt, a few precepts can be stated with some reliability. The first is that an outright prohibition of use or access to any facility or amenity cannot be allowed. Setting up selected hours for usage of a facility of amenity cannot be allowed. Less certain is the ability to promulgate rules requiring adult supervision of children of varying ages for use of facilities or amenities. It would appear that no supervision can be mandated for areas such as clubhouse, billiard room, library or common areas.

Establishing minimum age requirements for supervision: A foray into the uncertain

The "14 and under" requirement of California regulations for pool supervision is a should not a must provision. Hence, management cannot require supervision of 14 years of age and under. The only clearly legal position is not to require supervision, and let it be for the parents to take personal accountability and responsibility for their children. The court makes this statement:

"... there is nothing magical about the age 18 or 14 years old if defendants' concerns are for the protection of the health and safety of the children or other residents in using recreational facilities or the swimming pool or riding bicycles. Such concerns could be addressed with the use of rules. Moreover, rather than being connected to such ages, bicycle and pool safety would be better served with a proficiency requirement."

The courts have intervened on occasion to require discrimination against children for their own good and government does so all the time. For example, you cannot vote until you are 18, drink alcohol until you are 21, cannot drive until you are 16.[2] However, housing providers subject to the FHA may not rely on or use the same governmentally-established restrictions in developing their rules and regulations despite the dangers posed by the common area facilities.

Another example: Pedestrian injuries are the second greatest cause of harm to children from five to 14 years of age. See the National Safe Kids Campaign Bicycle Injury Fact Sheet, September, 1997.[3] However, it is illegal to have a rule and regulations which states that "children are not to walk around the community without adult supervision."

Is it unreasonable to require adult supervision within the common areas of a manufactured home community? It would seem that such a rule is reasonable. However, for a community owner, such a rule violates the FHA. On the other hand the Consumer Products safety Commission urges supervision of children while on a playground for example (Consumer Product Safety Commission, Public Playground Safety Checklist, CPSC Document #327: "10. Carefully supervised children on playgrounds to make sure they're safe"). The federal law states that the parents are responsible for their children, not the management.

Previously sustained rules

The courts have previously allowed the following rules. This information may be largely historical at this juncture, for it remains unclear whether or not they remain viable in light of the Plaza Mobile Estates decision (these rules were sustained under the previous "reasonableness" test, not the "compelling interest" basis test):

1. Rules which bar use of a pool for children fourteen (14) years of age and less have been upheld because the prohibition implements legislative policy. HUD v. Paradise Gardens, HUDALJ 04-90-0321-1, 1992 WL 406531 (HUDALJ Oct. 15, 1992)
2. A rule which required children under the age of fifteen (15) years to be accompanied by an adult who is at least eighteen (18) years old when using the swimming pool and exercise equipment. (HUD vs. Trace Corporation 1995 WL 434221 (H.U.D.A.L.J.)(Consent decree)).
3. Rules have been sustained for age restricted access as to power tools. "...Respondents may keep the machine shop with industrial power tools accessible only to tenants who are at least fifteen (15) years of age and may require tenant children between the ages of fifteen (15) and eighteen (18) years to be accompanied by an adult who is at least eighteen (18) years old when using the machine shop. Further, Respondent may require all users of the machine shop to hve complete training on the proper use of such tools." (HUD vs. Trace Corporation, 1995 WL 434221 (H.U.D.A.L.J.)(Consent decree)).]\
4. In the unpublished decision of United States v. Town Hall Terrace Association, 1997 WL 128353 (W.D.N.Y. 1997), the housing provider made available four pieces of exercise equipment: a multi-purpose with lifting machine, a stationary bicycle, an inclining board and a rowing machine – in its "the fitness center." Until 1992 an express policy restricted the use of the fitness center and its equipment to persons at least eighteen (18) years old. After mid-1992, this threshold was lowered to sixteen (16).[4]
5. One case allowed for a rule requiring adult supervision of children six (6) and under while biking in a street. U.S. v. M. Westland Co., CV 93-4141, Fair Housing-Fair Lending 15,941 (HUD ALJ 1994)). Another authority states that no child should be permitted in a street on a bicycle until at least ten (10) years of age. ("Cycling should be restricted to sidewalks and paths until a child is age 10 and able to show how well he or she rides and observes the basic rules of the road. Parental and adult supervision is essential and until the traffic skills and judgment thresholds are reached by each child." The National Safe Kids Campaign Bicycle Injury Fact Sheet, September, 1997).

But under the more recent Plaza Mobile Estates decision, the past allowances provide no basis on which to write your rules and regulations.

Don't blame the court!

However, it is too much to criticize or impugn the court for adhering to the letter of the law, and not legislating by "judicial fiat." The court interprets what the law is and does not legislate. That is the job of Congress and more pointedly in this case HUD (in its rule-making powers). The FHA prohibits discrimination, period. The federal law makes NO exceptions; exceptions to familial status rights is the job of HUD. It is not the court's duty. The court is not the Legislature.

The need for uniform guidelines to inform the housing providers of permissible restrictions

HUD should provide guidance for housing providers and establish bright line tests for common sense age-restrictive rules. HUD should defer to other legislative judgments made for child protection by allowing community owners to replicate existing laws in their rules and regulations. Model regulations for protection of the young could be published. HUD could establish a rule pre-approval procedure.

Community owners just want to comply with the law and provide reasonable requirements for protection of children. But now, even experienced lawyers cannot intelligibly predict the enforceability of any age-restrictive rules. At this time, attaining any ascribed legitimacy of a rule only follows after an expensive legal defense with a heavy burden of proof requiring compelling business necessity. A conciliation agreement binds the complainant. If another resident complains the next day, the conciliation agreement is worthless as a defense to the rule. This is an inconceivably inefficient manner of testing rule validity. The costs to business in such concerns vastly outweigh the benefit to be achieved. The cost to the consumer in spreading the expense of this exercise could be largely obviated if the housing provider had some guidance in defining acceptable rules for promotion of health and safety. The suggestion of administering proficiency tests is a null and void concept. The liability for negligently administering such tests, seeking and paying for qualified testers, and then excluding the non-proficient residents will not be pursued by a single housing provider.

What can we do? Even in the absence of specific rules, educational materials may help parents understand common risks associated with youth. When educational information is provided as an adjunct to an activity rather than a rule restricting an activity, the chance of a claim of discriminatory preference is less likely to be made. For example, when a community owner offers such educational material from organizations who seek better protection of children, (e.g., police departments, charitable organizations, etc.) the community owner is providing a service – disseminating information and facts – not discriminating against children.[5]

You may also consider consulting with HUD in advance of amending rules and regulations. IF HUD even informally opines that a proposed policy is not defensible, or that no comment can be offered, at least the community owner can better assess the risk faced with a new rule and regulation. For example, if a resident complains that a particular resident who has open sores due to infection with the AIDS virus desires to use the swimming pool, can the management require that resident to stay out of the pool?

When faced with the question, the manger called to advise that she was not sure how to proceed. While administrative regulations require a doctor's letter stating that no public health or safety risk was posed by the patient's use of the pool, I consulted with HUD before announcing the management policy.

Finally

All the community owner wants is to know what the law is! What we do know is certain rules, certain practices reflecting what the law is not. But it is grossly unfair to relegate the duty to set standards on management. Having read this article, can you now, safely amend your rules to impose such a rule? No. No attorney can give an absolute assurance that such a rule will be sustained until ruled valid in a court. Until a court actually rules on the validity of the rule, or HUD or DFEH offers guidance on their interpretation of the rule, there can be no assurance of what an will not be permitted in developing age-restrictive rules and regulations. The best policy is to eliminate any and all age restrictive rules and regulations to avoid FHA claims.

Reprinted with permission from Western Manufactured Housing Communities Association (WMA) "Reporter", June 2008.

Terry Dowdall has specialized in manufactured home communities' law since 1978. His firm, Dowdall Law Office, APC is located in Orange County and Sacramento, with a practice limited exclusively to the manufactured housing industry. Mr. Dowdall serves as a legal advisor on WMA's Legislative Committee and has authored publications for the Continuing Legal Education of the State Bar. He is a frequent contributor to the WMA Reporter and facilitator at WMA educational seminars. He can be reached at 714-532-2222 (Orange) or 916-444-0777 (Sacramento).

[1] According to the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission, "...The main hazard from hot tubs and spas is the same as that from pools – drowning. Since 1980, CPSC has reports of more than 700 deaths in spas and hot tubs. About one-third of those were drownings to children under age five. Consumers should keep a locked safety cover on the spa whenever it is not in use and keep children away unless there is constant adult supervision. Hot Tub Temperatures – CPSC knows of several deaths from extremely hot water (approximately 110 degrees Fahrenheit) in a spa. High temperatures can cause drowsiness which may lead to unconsciousness, resulting in drowning. In addition, raised body temperature can lead to heat stroke and death. In 1987, CPSC helped develop requirements for temperature controls to make sure that spa water temperatures never exceed 104 degrees Fahrenheit. Pregnant women and young children should not use a spa before consulting with a physician. ... "CPSC Document #5112 "Spas, Hot Tubs, and Whirlpools Safety Alert".

[2] Municipal curfew regulations abound which restrict children. Los Angeles is typical. No one under 18 years of age is permitted in public places during school hours (" ... present in or upon the public streets, ... or any place open to the public during the hours of 8:30 am and 1:30 pm"). L.A.M.C. 45.04. The same restrictions apply after 10 pm. ("... any minor under the age of eighteen years to be present in or upon any public street, ... between the hours of 10:00 pm on any day and sunrise of the immediately following day; ...."). L.A.M.C. 45.03. Regulations for pool halls E.g. 17 (Midland Mi. Mun. Code Sec. 15-34) and 18 (1063-B. Pool halls. Public Laws of Maine) year age requirement), are commonly promulgated for the health and safety concerns for minors. It is unsafe for a park owner to rely on local or state laws in this respect in drafting rules and regulations.

[3] "[P]edestrian injury is the second leading cause of unintentional injury-related death among children ages 5 to 14. While the majority of pedestrian deaths and injuries are traffic-related, children ages 0 to 2 are more likely to suffer non-traffic-related pedestrian injuries, including those occurring in driveways, parking lots or on sidewalks. Although pedestrian injuries are not as common as motor vehicle occupant injuries, a disproportionate number of the injuries sustained by child pedestrians are severe. Between 25 and 50 percent of child pedestrian injuries require hospital admission. Children ages 5 to 9 are at the greatest risk from traffic–related pedestrian death and injury. Nearly one-third of all children ages 5 to 9 who are killed in traffic crashes are pedestrians").

[4] According to the U.S. Products Safety Commission: "The U. S. Consumer Product Safety Commission estimates that between 1985 and 1989, the latest period for which data are available, there were 1,200 amputations of children's fingers because of contact with exercise bikes. Most children were under the age of five. Many of the injuries occurred when the child's fingers touched the moving bike wheel or the chain and sprocket assembly. The Commission is concerned about the severity of injuries to children, especially because the hazard may not be obvious. Therefore, the commission warns parents always to keep children away from exercise bikes. Never use a bike without a chain guard, and when not using the bike, store it where children cannot get to it. Children's fingers can be amputated if they touch moving parts of exercise bike." Prevent Finger Amputations to Children From Exercise Bikes: Safety Alert: CPSC Document #5028.

[5] For example, educational material exist which explain that young children have peripheral vision which is two-thirds that of an adult; they have difficulty determining the source of sounds; traffic noises and sirens may be confusing; they may not understand that an automobile may seriously hurt or kill them; most children cannot understand a complex chain of events; children believe that all grownups will look out for them; they think that if they can see an adult driving a car toward them, the driver must be able to see them; children often mix fantasy with reality – they may give themselves superhuman powers and o not understand that a moving vehicle can hurt them; they have difficulty judging the speed and distance of oncoming vehicles.