Harbour Pointe of Perdido Key Condominium Ass'n v. Henkel

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Harbour Pointe of Perdido Key Condominium Ass'n v. Henkel

216 So. 3d 753, 2017 WL 1372669, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 5198

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 13, 2017

DocketCASE NO. 1D15-3123

StatusPublished

This text of 216 So. 3d 753 (Harbour Pointe of Perdido Key Condominium Ass'n v. Henkel) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Harbour Pointe of Perdido Key Condominium Ass'n v. Henkel, 216 So. 3d 753, 2017 WL 1372669, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 5198 (Fla. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinions

RAY, J.,

This appeal originates from a housing discrimination complaint filed by James Henkel with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (“Commission”) pursuant to the Fair Housing Act, sections 760.20-760,37, Florida Statutes (2012). Mr. Henkel alleged that Harbour Pointe of Perdido Key Condominium Association, Inc. (“Association”) committed discriminatory housing practices by making modifications that created inaccessible routes and entries to public and common use areas at the condominium where Mr. Henkel resides. After an evidentiary hearing before the Division of Administrative Hearings, the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) is[754]*754sued a recommended order to the Commission, concluding that Mr. Henkel had failed to establish that the Association discriminated against him based on his handicap and recommending dismissal of the complaint. The Commission disagreed with the ALJ’s conclusions of law, and the Association appealed the final order of the Commission.

We find merit in the Association’s argument that the Commission erred in its determination that the Association committed discriminatory housing practices by allegedly making modifications to the opening pressures of the entrance and exit doors of the condominium that rendered them non-compliant with the Fair Housing Act’s design-and-construction standards. While the ALJ found that “[t]he subject doors have opening pressures that vary, but are usually out of compliance with applicable Florida and Federal standards for handicap access,” the ALJ properly concluded that Mr. Henkel had not proven a prima facie case of discrimination because the Association did not design or construct the condominium, and the evidence was insufficient to show that the Association had modified the doors since ownership of the condominium was transferred and the Association became responsible for the management and operation of the condominium. See Harding v. Orlando Apartments, LLC, 748 F.3d 1128, 1134 (11th Cir. 2014) (holding that purchaser of apartment complex who was not involved in the design or construction of the dwelling was not liable for the failure of the apartment complex to comply with federal Fair Housing Act design-and-construction standards). Accordingly, we reverse the order under review and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. In all other respects, the order is affirmed.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.

OSTERHAUS, J., CONCURS WITH OPINION; MAKAR, J., DISSENTS.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

RAY, J.,

This appeal originates from a housing discrimination complaint filed by James Henkel with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (“Commission”) pursuant to the Fair Housing Act, sections 760.20-760,37, Florida Statutes (2012). Mr. Henkel alleged that Harbour Pointe of Perdido Key Condominium Association, Inc. (“Association”) committed discriminatory housing practices by making modifications that created inaccessible routes and entries to public and common use areas at the condominium where Mr. Henkel resides. After an evidentiary hearing before the Division of Administrative Hearings, the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) is[754]*754sued a recommended order to the Commission, concluding that Mr. Henkel had failed to establish that the Association discriminated against him based on his handicap and recommending dismissal of the complaint. The Commission disagreed with the ALJ’s conclusions of law, and the Association appealed the final order of the Commission.

We find merit in the Association’s argument that the Commission erred in its determination that the Association committed discriminatory housing practices by allegedly making modifications to the opening pressures of the entrance and exit doors of the condominium that rendered them non-compliant with the Fair Housing Act’s design-and-construction standards. While the ALJ found that “[t]he subject doors have opening pressures that vary, but are usually out of compliance with applicable Florida and Federal standards for handicap access,” the ALJ properly concluded that Mr. Henkel had not proven a prima facie case of discrimination because the Association did not design or construct the condominium, and the evidence was insufficient to show that the Association had modified the doors since ownership of the condominium was transferred and the Association became responsible for the management and operation of the condominium. See Harding v. Orlando Apartments, LLC, 748 F.3d 1128, 1134 (11th Cir. 2014) (holding that purchaser of apartment complex who was not involved in the design or construction of the dwelling was not liable for the failure of the apartment complex to comply with federal Fair Housing Act design-and-construction standards). Accordingly, we reverse the order under review and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. In all other respects, the order is affirmed.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.

OSTERHAUS, J., CONCURS WITH OPINION; MAKAR, J., DISSENTS.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

216 So. 3d 753, 2017 WL 1372669, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 5198, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harbour-pointe-of-perdido-key-condominium-assn-v-henkel-fladistctapp-2017.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack