Tag Archives: injury

Two Year Statute of Limitations for FHA Claims

Telesca v. The Village of Kings Creek Condominium Association, Inc.,
No. 09-13910, U.S. App. Ct., 11th Cir., Aug. 2, 2010

The Telescas bought a condominium unit in Florida, which they used as a vacation home for over fifteen years.  Parking at the condominium, pursuant to the condominium’s policy, was on a first come first serve basis.  Several handicap spaces were available at the complex, but none were relatively close in proximity to the Telescas’ unit.

In 2004, the Telescas asked the association for an assigned parking space based on their declining health conditions, but their request was denied.  They repeated this request in 2005 and again in 2007, and were rejected twice more based on association policies.  Once in 2005, Mrs. Telesca’s car was towed when she parked in a resident space while visiting their unit. This incident, according to the court, was the only specific injury alleged in the complaint filed in 2008.

The complaint against the association alleged harassment, retaliation and discrimination in violation of the Fair Housing Act.  The district court found that the Telescas complaint failed to plead a particularized injury within the two-year statute of limitations period. The trial court also determined that the Telescas did not have standing to bring their FHA claim for violations relating to a property that was not a full-time residence.

On appeal, the court held that while the Telescas did have standing to bring their claim,  they did not state an injury within the statute of limitations period.  The appeals court found that a vacation home can be considered a dwelling under the FHA, which meant that they had standing to bring a claim based on discrimination “in the provision of services or facilities in connection with [a] dwelling because of a handicap.”  The Act requires “reasonable modifications” of existing

Read more

Association Liable for Unit Owner’s Injury

A Michigan court recently held that a condo association was negligent in failing to repair the developer’s construction defects, which led to a unit owner’s injury.  The owner noticed a problem with excessive draining on her roof and had complained several times to the developer and association.  The draining frequently caused water to overflow from the gutters and collect on her porch.

A month after the developer relinquished control to the board, ice accumulated on the walkway and the unit owner fell sustaining serious injuries.  The owner filed suit against the association based on theories of premises liability, nuisance, and negligence.

The Michigan court of appeals reasoned that, akin to landlord tenant law, the association had a duty to maintain the common areas in a reasonably safe condition.  According to the association’s bylaws, the gutters and roofs are included as common areas and are under the exclusive control of the association.  Because the association failed to remedy the construction defects that caused the ice to accumulate, the association could be held liable for the owner’s injuries.  The court of appeals remanded the case for further proceedings.

This site and any information contained herein is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice.  Seek a competent attorney for advice on any legal matter.

Read more

What is Standing to Sue?

In order to
successfully bring a lawsuit, the plaintiff must have standing to sue. 
Standing means the plaintiff is the right person to bring a particular
claim before the court for adjudication.  There are three requirements
for standing: injury, causation, and redress.
First, the
Plaintiff must have directly and personally…

Read more

What is Standing to Sue?

In order to
successfully bring a lawsuit, the plaintiff must have standing to sue. 
Standing means the plaintiff is the right person to bring a particular
claim before the court for adjudication.  There are three requirements
for standing: injury, causation, and redress.

First, the
Plaintiff must have directly and personally sustained an injury, or
there is immediate danger that the Plaintiff will sustain a direct
injury.  It is improper to sue for an injury that is of a general nature
common to all members of the public.  Likewise, it is generally
improper to sue for the rights of a third party.  However,
parties with standing to sue will often assign their rights to another party to
sue on their behalf.  This is frequently seen in construction defect
cases where individual homeowners assign the homeowners’ association
or regime the right to sue on behalf of all members collectively. 

Second,
causation requires that the injury be fairly traceable to the
Defendant’s conduct.  This element ensures that the Plaintiff is suing
the correct Defendant.   

Finally, redress means that a
favorable court decision will likely rectify the Plaintiff’s injury.  If
the court determines that a party lacks standing to bring a claim, the
court will typically grant summary judgment in favor of the opposing
party.

This site and any information contained herein is for
informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal
advice.  Seek a competent attorney for advice on any legal matter.

Read more