Tag Archives: appeals

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

Court of Appeals Finds for Developer in Homeowner Uprising

    The South Carolina Court of Appeals handed down a decision last week against a group of disgruntled homeowners who attempted to create their own property owners’ association. 

    The homeowners live in Phase I of Wright’s Point Plantation, a waterfront community in Beaufort County. Wright’s Point was purchased by the developer in 1997, and in 1998 the Declarations of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions, and Easements (“Declarations”) were recorded. Subsequently, the Wright’s Point Homeowners’ Association was incorporated. In 2003, several property owners from Phase I decided to band together and form a new entity: The Wright’s Point Property Owners’ Association. The Phase I owners disapproved of certain Architectural Committee Requirements and did not wish to share Phase I amenities with owners in future phases of the development. 

    The newly founded Property Owners’ Association held it’s first annual meeting, which the developer attended with his attorney. The developer contested the existence of the new association under the Declarations and stated that only the developer could appoint and remove directors, the meeting was not official, several owners had not been provided with notice of the meeting, and any meetings done without the developers’ knowledge were “not legal.”

    The homeowners then filed suit asking the court to declare, among other things, that the developer’s authority to control appointment of directors and officers had terminated, the Wright’s Point Property Owners’ Association was valid, and only the owners in Phase I had a right of use and access to the common areas owned by the Association. The homeowners also sought an injunction against the developer to prevent him from trying to control the business of the Association. The developer counter claimed for damages in multiple causes of action to include civil conspiracy, breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, conversion, tortious interference with contractual relationships,

Read more