Guenther v. Walnut Grove Hillside Condo. Regime No. 3 , 309 Neb. 655 ( 2021 )


Menu:
  • Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library
    www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/
    07/16/2021 08:10 AM CDT
    - 655 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
    309 Nebraska Reports
    GUENTHER v. WALNUT GROVE HILLSIDE CONDO. REGIME NO. 3
    Cite as 
    309 Neb. 655
    Christine Guenther, appellant,
    v. Walnut Grove Hillside
    Condominium Regime
    No. 3, Inc., appellee.
    Filed July 2, 2021.     No. S-20-574.
    1. Declaratory Judgments. An action for declaratory judgment is sui
    generis; whether such action is to be treated as one at law or one in
    equity is to be determined by the nature of the dispute.
    2. Injunction: Equity. An action for injunctive relief is equitable in
    nature.
    3. Declaratory Judgments: Equity: Appeal and Error. In reviewing an
    equity action for a declaratory judgment, an appellate court tries factual
    issues de novo on the record and reaches a conclusion independent of
    the findings of the trial court, subject to the rule that where credible
    evidence is in conflict on material issues of fact, the reviewing court
    may consider and give weight to the fact that the trial court observed the
    witnesses and accepted one version of the facts over another.
    4. Federal Acts: Discrimination: Proof. The Fair Housing Act requires
    accommodation if such accommodation (1) is reasonable and (2) neces-
    sary (3) to afford a handicapped person the equal opportunity to use and
    enjoy a dwelling. The movant bears the burden of proving each of these
    elements by a preponderance of the evidence.
    5. Federal Acts: Claims: Proof. The ultimate burden to prove both the
    reasonableness and the necessity of a requested accommodation remains
    always with the plaintiffs asserting a reasonable accommodation claim
    under the Fair Housing Act.
    6. Federal Acts: Discrimination: Proof. In order to demonstrate that the
    accommodation was necessary under the Fair Housing Act, a claim-
    ant is required to show that the accommodation was indispensable or
    essential to the claimant’s equal opportunity to use and enjoy his or
    her dwelling.
    - 656 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
    309 Nebraska Reports
    GUENTHER v. WALNUT GROVE HILLSIDE CONDO. REGIME NO. 3
    Cite as 
    309 Neb. 655
    7. Federal Acts: Discrimination. In order to gauge the necessity of
    an accommodation, courts are required to consider whether another
    alternative satisfies the Fair Housing Act’s goal to provide equal hous-
    ing opportunities.
    8. Appeal and Error. An appellate court is not obligated to engage in an
    analysis that is not necessary to adjudicate the case and controversy
    before it.
    Appeal from the District Court for Douglas County:
    Gregory M. Schatz, Judge. Affirmed.
    Thomas C. Dorwart and Adam J. Kost, of Goosmann Law
    Firm, P.L.C., for appellant.
    Minja Herian and Gabreal M. Belcastro, of Koley Jessen,
    P.C., L.L.O., for appellee.
    Heavican, C.J., Cassel, Stacy, Funke, Papik, and
    Freudenberg, JJ.
    Funke, J.
    Christine Guenther appeals from the dismissal of her com-
    plaint for declaratory judgment. Following a bench trial, the
    court dismissed Guenther’s claim that Walnut Grove Hillside
    Condominium Regime No. 3, Inc. (Walnut Grove), refused
    to make a reasonable accommodation, under the federal Fair
    Housing Act and the Nebraska Fair Housing Act (collectively
    FHA), 1 by denying her request to secure her daughter’s emo-
    tional support dogs through construction of a fence in a com-
    mon area. Finding no error in the court’s decision, we affirm.
    BACKGROUND
    Guenther owns a condominium unit, consisting of one half
    of a duplex, located in Omaha, Douglas County, Nebraska.
    Walnut Grove is a condominium regime and homeowners’
    association (HOA) incorporated in Nebraska, which operates
    1
    See, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601 to 3619 (2018); Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 20-301 to
    30-344 (Reissue 2012).
    - 657 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
    309 Nebraska Reports
    GUENTHER v. WALNUT GROVE HILLSIDE CONDO. REGIME NO. 3
    Cite as 
    309 Neb. 655
    through a HOA board. Guenther’s condominium is within the
    Walnut Grove subdivision and is subject to Walnut Grove’s
    bylaws and covenants.
    At the time of trial, Guenther’s daughter, N.G., lived in
    Lincoln, Nebraska, where she attended college full time. N.G.
    also lived with Guenther in Omaha for part of the year. N.G.
    has been diagnosed with major depressive disorder and anxi-
    ety disorder. She uses two dogs as emotional support animals
    based on the recommendations of her doctor. The animals live
    with Guenther in Omaha.
    In February 2018, Guenther made a request to Walnut Grove
    to construct a fence through part of the common area behind
    her condominium, or to repair an existing fence, for the purpose
    of allowing the dogs to safely spend time outside. Guenther
    offered to pay for the cost of the fence. Guenther asserted
    that releasing the dogs into a fenced-in area would alleviate
    N.G.’s anxiety regarding the dogs’ safety, because N.G.’s first
    emotional support dog was killed outside the condominium
    shortly after they had moved in. According to Guenther, when
    the first dog was killed, she heard “horrible screeching, yelp-
    ing sounds,” and found the dog lying on the street close to
    the curb. Though Guenther thought the dog might have been
    attacked by a neighbor’s dog, she did not know if the dog was
    attacked or was hit by a car. N.G. was not present when the
    animal was killed.
    Walnut Grove denied Guenther’s request. Based on its
    bylaws and covenants, Walnut Grove stated that it lacked the
    authority to divide or partition one of the “general common
    elements.” “[G]eneral common elements” consist of, among
    other property features, “[t]he land on which the Units stand,
    including all surrounding lands embraced within [the condo-
    minium regime].” Walnut Grove stated that Guenther’s request
    to construct the fence would violate HOA bylaws and cov-
    enants stating that “[t]he general common elements shall be
    for the use and enjoyment of all Unit Owners. The owner-
    ship of the general common elements shall remain undivided,
    - 658 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
    309 Nebraska Reports
    GUENTHER v. WALNUT GROVE HILLSIDE CONDO. REGIME NO. 3
    Cite as 
    309 Neb. 655
    and no Unit Owner or other person shall have the right to
    partition or division of the general common elements of the
    Condominium Regime.”
    In August 2018, Guenther again requested to install the
    fence to alleviate N.G.’s depression and anxiety. Walnut Grove
    again denied the request, and it suggested alternatives that
    would be permitted under the bylaws and covenants, such
    as installing an underground invisible fence, constructing a
    privacy fence around Guenther’s patio, or tethering the dogs
    while outside.
    On January 30, 2019, Guenther filed a complaint in the
    district court for Douglas County seeking a declaration that
    Walnut Grove refused a reasonable accommodation under the
    FHA. Guenther alleged that N.G. has been diagnosed with
    major depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, and anorexia; that
    an emotional support dog is required for her treatment; and
    that N.G. suffered from severe depression and anxiety as
    a result of the death of the previous dog. Guenther alleged
    that Walnut Grove engaged in selective enforcement of HOA
    bylaws and covenants, because two adjacent neighbors have
    fences around their common areas, which fences were grand-
    fathered in. Guenther alleged that she has a partial fence that
    was also grandfathered in and that constructing the rest of the
    fence would not divide the general common area if the fence
    included a gate to allow neighbors to pass through. Guenther
    requested a declaration that Walnut Grove violated her equal
    protection rights under the U.S. and Nebraska Constitutions,
    a declaration that Walnut Grove violated her rights under the
    FHA, an order allowing her to construct the fence, and an
    award of attorney fees.
    Walnut Grove filed an answer on March 7, 2019, which
    alleged that it had proposed reasonable alternatives that would
    keep N.G.’s dogs safe without violating the HOA bylaws
    and covenants.
    The court held a trial on the matter on June 25, 2020. On
    July 17, the court entered its order of judgment dismissing
    - 659 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
    309 Nebraska Reports
    GUENTHER v. WALNUT GROVE HILLSIDE CONDO. REGIME NO. 3
    Cite as 
    309 Neb. 655
    Guenther’s complaint, finding that she failed to sustain her
    burden of proof. The court found that for Guenther to prevail
    on her claims under the FHA, she had to show that a person
    residing in her dwelling is a “handicapped person,” 2 as defined
    under the FHA, and that the reasonable accommodation is
    “necessary to afford [the] handicapped person . . . an equal
    opportunity to use and enjoy the premises.” 3 The court referred
    to exhibit 2, which contained a doctor’s note dated August 12,
    2019, confirming N.G.’s major depressive disorder and anxiety
    disorder diagnoses and stating her dog “is a great source of
    comfort to her” and that “[h]er health benefits from the com-
    panionship of the family dog.” However, the court referred to
    N.G.’s testimony that she was originally diagnosed in approxi-
    mately 2015 and that at the time of trial, she no longer received
    treatment or medication for her major depressive and anxi-
    ety disorders.
    The court found that, under the circumstances, Guenther
    failed to show that N.G. suffered from a physical or mental
    impairment which substantially limits one or more of her
    major life activities and that therefore, Guenther failed to
    show that N.G. is a handicapped person as defined under
    the FHA. In addition, the court found that Guenther failed
    to prove that her requested accommodation is necessary to
    afford N.G. an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the home.
    The court noted N.G.’s testimony that she primarily lived in
    Lincoln and that when she is at Guenther’s home, “she is
    able to interact with the . . . dogs” and “is able to take them
    for walks . . . outside.” Notably, Guenther testified that her
    next-door neighbor, Carol Bolton, permits the animals to be
    kept in a fenced-in yard. Bolton testified and confirmed that
    she offered the use of her fenced-in yard and that Guenther
    had kept the dogs in Bolton’s yard for about 2 years. The
    2
    See, 42 U.S.C. § 3602(h); § 20-313.
    3
    See, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f )(3); § 20-319(2).
    - 660 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
    309 Nebraska Reports
    GUENTHER v. WALNUT GROVE HILLSIDE CONDO. REGIME NO. 3
    Cite as 
    309 Neb. 655
    court found that Guenther “offered no evidence that hav-
    ing the dogs outdoors, in a fenced-in backyard, would be
    required to afford [N.G.] an equal opportunity to use and
    enjoy [Guenther’s home].”
    Guenther filed an appeal. We moved the case to our docket
    on our own motion.
    ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
    Guenther assigns, summarized and restated, that the dis-
    trict court erred in (1) finding insufficient proof that N.G. is
    a handicapped person, (2) finding insufficient proof that the
    requested accommodation was necessary to afford N.G. an
    equal opportunity to use and enjoy Guenther’s home, (3) fail-
    ing to apply the proper burden-shifting analysis for a claim
    under the FHA, (4) failing to find that Walnut Grove did not
    meet its burden of proving that Guenther’s requested accom-
    modation was unreasonable, and (5) failing to award Guenther
    attorney fees and costs.
    STANDARD OF REVIEW
    [1-3] An action for declaratory judgment is sui generis;
    whether such action is to be treated as one at law or one in
    equity is to be determined by the nature of the dispute. 4 An
    action for injunctive relief is equitable in nature. 5 In reviewing
    an equity action for a declaratory judgment, an appellate court
    tries factual issues de novo on the record and reaches a conclu-
    sion independent of the findings of the trial court, subject to
    the rule that where credible evidence is in conflict on mate-
    rial issues of fact, the reviewing court may consider and give
    weight to the fact that the trial court observed the witnesses
    and accepted one version of the facts over another. 6
    4
    Wilkison v. City of Arapahoe, 
    302 Neb. 968
    , 
    926 N.W.2d 441
     (2019).
    5
    See 
    id. 6
    Id.
    - 661 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
    309 Nebraska Reports
    GUENTHER v. WALNUT GROVE HILLSIDE CONDO. REGIME NO. 3
    Cite as 
    309 Neb. 655
    ANALYSIS
    We first discuss Guenther’s second assignment of error,
    because resolution of that issue is dispositive. Guenther argues
    that the district court erred in finding that she failed to prove
    that the requested accommodation was necessary to afford
    N.G. an equal opportunity to use and enjoy Guenther’s home.
    Guenther argues that “the fence would enhance [N.G.’s]
    quality of life by ameliorating the effects of her disability.” 7
    She argues that N.G.’s emotional support dogs help N.G. with
    her anxiety and depression and that N.G. worries about the
    dogs being attacked. Walnut Grove argues the court correctly
    found that construction of a fence in a common area, in viola-
    tion of the HOA bylaws and covenants, was not necessary to
    achieve equal housing opportunities for N.G.
    In this court’s recent decision of Wilkison v. City of
    Arapahoe, 8 we resolved an appeal involving a therapy animal
    and a reasonable accommodation claim under the FHA. In that
    case, we set forth the legal standards governing reasonable
    accommodation claims and the applicable burden of proof. As
    such, our analysis from Wilkison contains everything necessary
    to decide this case. Pursuant to Wilkison, we conclude that the
    district court correctly determined that Guenther failed to prove
    that the requested accommodation was necessary.
    [4] The FHA makes it unlawful to “discriminate in the sale
    or rental, or to otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwell-
    ing to any buyer or renter because of a handicap.” 9 The FHA
    prohibits “discrimina[tion] against any person in the terms,
    conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in
    the provision of services or facilities in connection with such
    dwelling, because of a handicap.” 10 For purposes of the FHA,
    7
    Brief for appellant at 16-17.
    8
    Wilkison, supra note 4.
    9
    42 U.S.C. § 3604(f )(1). Accord § 20-319(1)(a).
    10
    42 U.S.C. § 3604(f )(2). Accord § 20-319(1)(b).
    - 662 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
    309 Nebraska Reports
    GUENTHER v. WALNUT GROVE HILLSIDE CONDO. REGIME NO. 3
    Cite as 
    309 Neb. 655
    discrimination includes a refusal to make “reasonable accom-
    modations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such
    accommodations may be necessary to afford such person equal
    opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.” 11 The FHA requires
    accommodation if such accommodation (1) is reasonable and
    (2) necessary (3) to afford a handicapped person the equal
    opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. 12 The movant bears
    the burden of proving each of these elements by a preponder-
    ance of the evidence. 13
    [5] Guenther has argued that in considering her claim, this
    court should apply a burden-shifting analysis so that the mov-
    ant must show that the requested accommodation is reason-
    able on its face and then the opponent must show the accom-
    modation creates an undue hardship. However, the analysis
    proposed by Guenther applies only in the context of a defend­
    ant’s motion for summary judgment regarding a reasonable
    accommodation claim. 14 Here, we are reviewing a judgment
    following a bench trial. “The ultimate burden to prove both the
    reasonableness and the necessity of a requested accommoda-
    tion remains always with the plaintiffs asserting a reasonable
    accommodation claim under the [FHA].” 15 Pursuant to our
    de novo review, we must determine whether Guenther carried
    her burden of proving her request to build a fence in Walnut
    Grove’s common area (1) is reasonable and (2) necessary (3) to
    afford a handicapped person the equal opportunity to use and
    enjoy a dwelling.
    11
    42 U.S.C. § 3604(f )(3)(B). Accord § 20-319(2)(b).
    12
    See, id.; Howard v. City of Beavercreek, 
    276 F.3d 802
     (6th Cir. 2002);
    Oconomowoc Residential Prog. v. City of Milwaukee, 
    300 F.3d 775
     (7th
    Cir. 2002).
    13
    Bryant Wood Inn, Inc. v. Howard County, Md., 
    124 F.3d 597
     (4th Cir.
    1997).
    14
    See US Airways, Inc. v. Barnett, 
    535 U.S. 391
    , 
    122 S. Ct. 1516
    , 
    152 L. Ed. 2d 589
     (2002).
    15
    Wilkison, 
    supra note 4,
     
    302 Neb. at 977,
     926 N.W.2d at 449.
    - 663 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
    309 Nebraska Reports
    GUENTHER v. WALNUT GROVE HILLSIDE CONDO. REGIME NO. 3
    Cite as 
    309 Neb. 655
    To determine whether an accommodation is reasonable, the
    inquiry is highly fact specific, requires balancing the needs
    of the parties, and involves assessing both financial and
    administrative costs and burdens. 16 An accommodation is rea-
    sonable if it is both efficacious and proportional to the costs
    to implement it, and an accommodation is unreasonable if it
    imposes undue financial or administrative burdens or requires
    a fundamental alteration in the nature of the program. 17 As
    stated, in this appeal, we need not engage in a reasonableness
    inquiry. Instead, the question we address is whether Guenther
    adduced sufficient evidence that construction of the fence
    is necessary.
    [6] The FHA “‘links the term “necessary” to the goal of
    equal opportunity. . . . Plaintiffs must show that, but for the
    accommodation, they likely will be denied an equal opportu-
    nity to enjoy the housing of their choice.’” 18 “‘[T]he necessity
    element is, in other words, a causation inquiry that examines
    whether the requested accommodation or modification would
    redress injuries that otherwise would prevent a disabled resi-
    dent from receiving the same enjoyment from the property as a
    non-disabled person would receive.’” 19 In order to demonstrate
    that the accommodation was necessary, a claimant is required
    to show that the accommodation was indispensable or essential
    to the claimant’s equal opportunity to use and enjoy his or
    her dwelling. 20
    Upon our review of the record, although it is undisputed that
    N.G. suffers from major depressive and anxiety disorders and
    16
    
    Id. 17
    Id.
    18
    Id. at 979,
     926 N.W.2d at 450, quoting Smith & Lee Associates v. City of
    Taylor, Mich., 
    102 F.3d 781
     (6th Cir. 1996).
    19
    
    Id.,
     quoting Hollis v. Chestnut Bend Homeowners Ass’n, 
    760 F.3d 531
     (6th
    Cir. 2014).
    20
    See Wilkison, 
    supra note 4
    .
    - 664 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
    309 Nebraska Reports
    GUENTHER v. WALNUT GROVE HILLSIDE CONDO. REGIME NO. 3
    Cite as 
    309 Neb. 655
    that the family dogs have a positive impact on her health, we
    conclude there is insufficient proof that the fence is necessary. 21
    Guenther cites to an unpublished opinion, Oregon Bureau of
    Labor and Industries ex rel. Mayorga v. Housing Authority
    of Douglas County, 22 to argue that a service animal, like any
    other assistance device, may require an additional accommoda-
    tion to enable its effective use. However, this authority merely
    establishes that the fence qualifies as an accommodation; such
    does not establish that the fence is necessary. The undisputed
    evidence shows that, without the fence, N.G. freely enjoys the
    use of the animals while at Walnut Grove. As such, Guenther
    failed to prove that the fence is indispensable or essential to
    achieving equal housing opportunities for N.G.
    The requirement that an accommodation be necessary is
    expressly linked to the goal of affording equal opportunity to
    use and enjoy a dwelling. 23 Thus, a necessary accommodation
    is one that alleviates the effects of a disability. 24 The only evi-
    dence in the record that construction of a fence in the common
    area is necessary is N.G.’s testimony that knowing the dogs
    were safe in the yard “would give [her] much more peace of
    mind.” However, this aspect of Guenther’s theory depends on
    the assertion that without the fence, the animals will be at risk
    of being attacked by other dogs. There is no evidence to sup-
    port this assertion. Guenther thought that the first emotional
    support dog was attacked by a larger dog owned by one of her
    neighbors. However, Guenther admitted that she did not know
    if the dog was attacked by another dog or hit by a car. The
    21
    See Landmark Props. v. Olivo, 
    5 Misc. 3d 18
    , 
    783 N.Y.S.2d 745
     (2004).
    22
    Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries ex rel. Mayorga v. Housing
    Authority of Douglas County, No. 6:13-cv-01205-MC, 
    2014 WL 5285609
    (D. Or. Oct. 15, 2014).
    23
    Cinnamon Hills Youth Crisis v. St. George City, 
    685 F.3d 917
     (10th Cir.
    2012).
    24
    Bhogaita v. Altamonte Heights Condominium Ass’n, 
    765 F.3d 1277
     (11th
    Cir. 2014).
    - 665 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
    309 Nebraska Reports
    GUENTHER v. WALNUT GROVE HILLSIDE CONDO. REGIME NO. 3
    Cite as 
    309 Neb. 655
    neighbor testified that Guenther told her at the time of the inci-
    dent that the dog was hit by a car. Furthermore, Bolton, another
    neighbor, allows the emotional support animals to be kept in
    her fenced-in yard, next to Guenther’s condominium.
    [7] Even if there were factual support for Guenther’s stated
    need for a fence, Guenther failed to adequately address Walnut
    Grove’s proposed alternatives. In order to gauge the necessity
    of an accommodation, courts are required to consider whether
    another alternative satisfies the FHA’s goal to provide equal
    housing opportunities. 25 Walnut Grove proposed the alterna-
    tives of using underground invisible fencing, using a privacy
    fence around Guenther’s patio, or tethering the animals while
    outside. There is no evidence that any of these alternatives
    would not have been effective. Additionally, there is evidence
    that using Bolton’s yard is an effective alternative. Guenther
    argues that she and N.G. are in the best position to make a spe-
    cific request for an accommodation. But the facts simply do not
    support Guenther’s request, and Guenther has no right to her
    preferred means of accommodation. 26 Therefore, we conclude
    that the district court correctly found that Guenther “offered no
    evidence that having the dogs outdoors, in a fenced-in back-
    yard, would be required to afford [N.G.] an equal opportunity
    to use and enjoy [Guenther’s home].”
    [8] Because Guenther failed to meet her burden to prove that
    construction of the fence is necessary, her claim for refusal of
    a reasonable accommodation under the FHA fails, and we need
    not consider her other assignments of error. An appellate court
    is not obligated to engage in an analysis that is not necessary
    to adjudicate the case and controversy before it. 27
    25
    See Wilkison, 
    supra note 4
    . See, also, Vorchheimer v. Philadelphian
    Owners Association, 
    903 F.3d 100
    , 108 (3d Cir. 2018) (“food is necessary
    to survive. But if soup and salad are on offer, a sandwich is not necessary”).
    26
    See 
    id.
     See, also, Loren v. Sasser, 
    309 F.3d 1296
     (11th Cir. 2002); Temple
    v. Hudson View Owners Corp., 
    222 F. Supp. 3d 318
     (S.D.N.Y. 2016).
    27
    In re Adoption of Yasmin S., 
    308 Neb. 771
    , 
    956 N.W.2d 704
     (2021).
    - 666 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
    309 Nebraska Reports
    GUENTHER v. WALNUT GROVE HILLSIDE CONDO. REGIME NO. 3
    Cite as 
    309 Neb. 655
    Lastly, Walnut Grove argues that it is entitled to attorney
    fees as the prevailing party. However, Walnut Grove’s request
    for attorney fees is premature. 28
    CONCLUSION
    The district court did not err in dismissing Guenther’s claim
    for refusal of a reasonable accommodation under the FHA.
    Affirmed.
    Miller-Lerman, J., not participating.
    28
    See Neb. Ct. R. App. P. § 2-109(F) (rev. 2021).