Lawsuit Alleges Interference Against Condo Buyers with Service Animals

The firm’s latest Miami Herald “Real Estate Counselor” column was authored by shareholder Michael Toback and appears in today’s edition of the newspaper. The article, which is titled “Lawsuit Alleges Malicious Interference Against Condo Buyers with Service Animals,” focuses on a recent lawsuit that illustrates the potential perils of associations losing sight of the applicable laws concerning assistance animals.  His article reads:

Unlike pets, assistance animals, which encompass both service animals and emotional support animals, are not subject to an association’s pet restrictions, and they may require deliberations and offers for reasonable accommodations in compliance with the federal Fair Housing Act as well as applicable Florida law. Such reasonable accommodations are offered to provide an individual with the equal opportunity to use and enjoy their dwelling and the premises.

According to the allegations in a recent lawsuit against a Palm Beach County condominium association and two of its board members, such common oversight may have taken place at the Lake Harbour Towers North Condominium in the town of Lake Park. The association and members of its board of directors are accused by plaintiff JAR Holding Company, the owner and seller of a residence in the eight-story condominium building on the Intracoastal Waterway near North Palm Beach, of intentionally interfering with the sale of its unit to prospective buyers with service animals.

The lawsuit, which was filed in early April in Palm Beach County Circuit Court, alleges that in March 2023 JAR received a sales contract for its unit for $415,000. During the final walkthrough of the residence by the prospective buyer, who was accompanied by her service animal, members of the association’s board of directors purportedly entered the residence without invitation and began speaking with the buyer in a confrontational manner.

When the board members inquired and were informed that the animal was the buyer’s service dog, it is alleged they told the buyer that they both served on the association’s board of directors and, while they could not legally prohibit service animals, they did not want such animals in the building or on the grounds.

“They took this action intentionally and with malice,” alleges the complaint.

Thereafter, the closing did not proceed, and the lawsuit states that the buyer indicated the reason the purchase fell through was because of the confrontation with the directors. Specifically, based on the board members’ actions, “. . . [the buyer] decided she could not live in that building where they informed her that they were going to discriminate against her,” alleges the complaint.

Later in August of the same year, JAR and its agent evidently received another written contract for the purchase of the residence for the same purchase price of $415,000. Again, that prospective buyer also relied on a service animal, which was with her and JAR’s real estate agent during the ensuing final walkthrough. The two directors again entered the residence and were told it was the buyer’s service animal, and once more they were apparently confrontational. They told the buyer that while they could not legally prohibit service animals, they did not want them at the property.

The lawsuit states that based on their actions individually and as board members, that second buyer likewise decided that she too could not live in a building with people who admitted they were going to discriminate against her.

Ultimately in March 2024, JAR was able to sell the residence for $350,000. As such, the lawsuit against both the association as well as the two board members in their individual capacities seeks damages for the difference in purchase price in excess of $50,000, plus legal costs and attorney fees, as a result of the claimed tortious interference.

The lawsuit alleges the association and its directors violated the federal Fair Housing Act as well as Florida law, which protect individuals with disabilities when buying or renting a dwelling. Both state that service animals are considered reasonable accommodations that can assist the disabled, who cannot be denied housing by a seller or community association because of their reliance on a service animal. The FHA specifically differentiates between pets and service or emotional support animals, and it requires associations to provide exemptions for such animals from certain pet policies and rules.

Notwithstanding, Florida community associations with restrictions barring pets are allowed to ask individuals whose disability is not readily apparent for additional information in order to properly evaluate and conduct a meaningful review of the requested accommodation. Those seeking the accommodation should provide reliable documentation from a healthcare provider to establish that they have a disability and the animal provides some type of disability-related assistance, and it is necessary to afford them with the equal opportunity to use and enjoy the dwelling. They should also bear in mind that Florida law now provides that a person who misrepresents having a service animal commits a misdemeanor of the second degree.

If a disability is evident and apparent, associations are required to make reasonable accommodations for an assistance animal so as to provide the disabled individual with equal opportunity to use and enjoy the property. Such accommodations are considered reasonable if they do not impose an undue hardship by causing excessive financial burdens for the association or fundamentally altering the nature of the community.

Michael concludes his article by noting that for all such cases, communities must endeavor to strike a balance between upholding their rules and adhering to their legal obligations to make reasonable accommodations. He advises that upon receipt of a reasonable accommodation request, it is recommended for associations to review and discuss them with qualified legal counsel in order to obtain guidance for the ensuing evaluation and determination.

Our firm salutes Michael for sharing his insights on the takeaways from this recent lawsuit with the readers of the Miami Herald. He and the firm’s other South Florida community association attorneys write about important matters for associations in this blog and our Miami Herald column, which appears every two weeks on Sundays, and we encourage association directors, members and property managers to click here and subscribe to our newsletter to receive our future articles.