Justices split on rental restriction case

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2008
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
In a ruling that could be the first of its kind in the nation, a divided Indiana Supreme Court Thursday afternoon reversed a lower court's ruling that a Kokomo subdivision's covenant restricting rentals violated the federal Fair Housing Act because of potential racial implications.

The state's highest court has been quiet on the issue since hearing arguments in October 2006, but it simultaneously decided to grant transfer and issue an opinion in the case of Villas West II of Willowridge v. Edna McGlothin, No. 34S02-0805-CV-266. The case involved a covenant that the Indiana Court of Appeals described as being "subterfuge for excluding minorities from renting homes" and a case of first impression that could affect how neighborhoods across the state implement no-rent provisions.

More than two years ago, the lower appellate court had upheld the trial judge's determination about the rental restriction. But a majority of the justices disagreed that the owner challenging the restriction, Edna McGlothin, proved any racial disparate impact.

The bottom line: the subdivision's no-lease covenant can stay in place.

"This record does not support a claim under a disparate impact theory," Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard wrote, joined by Justices Brent Dickson and Theodore Boehm. Justices Robert D. Rucker and Frank Sullivan dissented, voting to affirm the trial court.

The suit arose when the homeowners association sued McGlothin in 2002 for renting her residence in violation of a covenant barring rentals in the community to anyone other than family members. Algy and Edna McGlothin had bought the home in 1996. The developer controlled the association until turning it over to a board of homeowners in May 2000, but through their daughter the McGlothins had started leasing the home in 1998. That person rented until 2002, when the homeowner-controlled association notified the owner that they had violated the covenant. McGlothin had moved into a nursing home after her husband's death and needed the rental income to qualify for Medicaid and finance her care. The association sued her - as well as her estate after she died - and argued that the rental ban was needed to protect property values within the community and was consistent with the association's obligation to do so.

McGlothin countersued, arguing that the covenant violated the Fair Housing Act because it had a disparate impact on blacks. Howard Superior Judge Stephen Jessup ruled against the association, and the Court of Appeals upheld that decision in January 2006, holding that the covenant violates the federal Fair Housing Act. The association appealed.

But in their ruling, justices noted the trial court ruling was "clearly erroneous" because it found no "legitimate non-discriminatory reason" for the covenant despite undisputed evidence and expert testimony in the record showing that owners maintain property better than renters.

The court reflected on multiple jurisdictions' handling of how to determine whether any disparate impact had been proven, delving into federal caselaw in five of the 15 pages of the opinion. The majority noted that there is wide agreement in the federal Circuit courts that the FHA allows disparate impact claims but that there's no consensus about the proper framework for analyzing such a claim, and the U.S. Supreme Court hasn't addressed that issue.

A main federal precedent questioned, and ultimately rejected by the majority, was Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. v. Village of Arlington Heights, 558 F.2d 1283 (7th Cir. 1977), which is known as "Arlington Heights II." The majority notes that it isn't bound by federal precedent and that it finds Arlington Heights II "doctrinally unsound" in how it outlines a procedure for establishing the burden each party must meet. Ultimately, it settled on its own framework.

"In sum, to establish a right to disparate impact recovery under the FHA, a plaintiff must establish a prima facie case by demonstrating that a policy or practice actually or predictably has a significantly adverse or disproportionate impact on a protected class," Chief Justice Shepard wrote. "To rebut this showing, the defendant must demonstrate that its policy or practice has a manifest relationship to a legitimate, nondiscriminatory interest. The plaintiff may then overcome the defendant's showing by demonstrating that a less discriminatory alternative would serve the defendant's legitimate interest equally well."

Applying that framework to the Villas West II case, justices determined that McGlothin's evidence left "something to be desired" in proving that the no-lease covenant would predictably and disproportionately affected blacks, but it proceeded on the basis that the prima facie case was established. Next, it looked at the HOA's demonstration that it had a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the rule by considering expert testimony that renters don't maintain homes as well as owners do and, therefore, excluding renters helps maintain property values. Lastly, the justices looked at McGlothin's rebuttal claim that other covenants helped maintain the community and property values.

Chief Justice Shepard wrote that other property-maintenance covenants - rules to maintain windows and fixtures, maintain lawns, clear trash, signs, and non-working vehicles - can be a less discriminatory alternative to no-lease covenants, and that owners typically do take more pride in their properties. He relied on expert testimony and evidence that was undisputed at trial and noted these other covenants are not an equally effective way to address the problem of divided interests in rental property.

In the dissent, Justices Rucker and Sullivan pushed to not abandon the 30-year-old precedent from the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals that much of the case's analysis of disparate impact relied upon.

"The majority works overtime and spends much ink to argue that Arlington Heights II is flawed and should not be followed," Justice Rucker wrote. "Other than to make it exceedingly more difficult for legitimate victims of housing discrimination to press their claims, I see no reason to abandon this precedent."

Now, the Kokomo case goes back to Judge Jessup to decide whether any intentional discrimination occurred and if any relief is needed.

"We find ourselves unable to discern whether relief is appropriate on McGlothin's intentional discrimination claim," the court wrote. "The need for fair adjudication suggests the desirability of remanding for further evidence and findings."

Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.