Fair Housing / Lending News

The Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) has unveiled a series of proposed rule changes that would prohibit lenders from using sexual orientation or gender identity as a way of determining a borrower's eligibility. The proposed rule changes will (a) define sexual orientation and gender identity, (b) prohibit inquiries regarding sexual orientation and gender identity, (c) prohibit sexual orientation and gender identity as grounds for decision making in Federal Housing Administration (“FHA”) programs, and (d) would clarify that all eligible families, regardless of marital status, sexual orientation, or gender identity, have the opportunity to participate in HUD programs, including the housing choice voucher program. The proposed rule changes come in response to information gathered by HUD which suggests that gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (“LGBT”) individuals and families are arbitrarily excluded from housing opportunities because of their sexual preferences a...

Petty v. Portofino Council of Co-Owners, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22935 (March 12, 2010) The plaintiffs, Jeffrey, Cindy and Christopher Petty's charged defendants, the Portofino Council of Co-Owners, Inc., with violating the Fair Housing Act, along with violating state laws regulating defamation, libel, slander, negligent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Defendant responded to the claims by filing a motion to dismiss. The Pettys purchased a home in Corpus Christi, Texas and claim that they were harassed by the defendant in a variety of ways including the disconnection of their phone lines, which interfered with providing the proper care for their deaf son. Additionally, reasonable accommodations were denied the plaintiffs by limiting their ability to take the son’s service dog through the building so that the dog could relieve itself outside. The plaintiff not only claims that the defendant failed to make reasonab...

Sierra v. City of New York , 579 F.Supp.2d 543 (N.D.N.Y, 2008) Plaintiff, mother of two children, challenged the constitutionality of a NYC Housing Maintenance Code. She brought suit under 3604(a) claiming that the law which forbids children from living in SRO’s is facially discriminatory on the basis of family status. She sought to have the ordinance declared invalid and to enjoin its future enforcement. The court held that the city code did not violate the FHA because it furthered legitimate state interests in “health, safety and welfare of children that cannot be achieved through other alternatives” at 554. The court agreed that SROs are unsafe for children because occupants of several units share bathroom and kitchen facilities. The defendant offered “extensive evidence demonstrating concrete physical and psychological effects of SRO living on children, rather than merely generalizations and conclusory assertions.” at 551.