Guenther v. Walnut Grove Hillside Condo. Regime No. 3

Citation: 309 Neb. 655Docket: S-20-574

Court: Nebraska Supreme Court; July 2, 2021; Nebraska; State Supreme Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Christine Guenther appeals the dismissal of her complaint against Walnut Grove Hillside Condominium Regime No. 3, Inc., claiming the condominium association failed to provide a reasonable accommodation under the Fair Housing Act (FHA) for her daughter’s emotional support dogs. The Nebraska Supreme Court clarifies that an action for declaratory judgment is categorized based on the nature of the dispute, and that an action for injunctive relief is inherently equitable. In reviewing equity actions, appellate courts assess factual issues independently while considering the trial court's observations of witness credibility.

The court emphasizes that under the FHA, a claimant must prove that an accommodation is both reasonable and necessary for equal enjoyment of a dwelling, with the burden of proof lying with the plaintiff. To demonstrate necessity, the claimant must show the accommodation is essential for equal opportunity, and alternatives that fulfill the FHA’s objectives should also be evaluated. The court affirms the lower court's ruling, finding no error in dismissing Guenther's claim that the association denied her request to construct a fence for the dogs in a common area. Guenther resides in a condominium subject to the association's bylaws, and her daughter, diagnosed with major depressive and anxiety disorders, uses the dogs as emotional support.

In February 2018, Guenther requested permission from Walnut Grove to build or repair a fence in the common area behind her condominium to safely allow her dogs outside, offering to cover the costs. She claimed that a fenced area would reduce N.G.'s anxiety stemming from the traumatic death of her first emotional support dog. Walnut Grove denied the request, citing bylaws that prohibit partitioning common elements, which include the land surrounding the condominium. Guenther made a second request in August 2018, which was also denied, with Walnut Grove suggesting alternative solutions compliant with their rules, such as an underground fence or a privacy fence around her patio.

On January 30, 2019, Guenther filed a complaint in Douglas County district court, asserting that Walnut Grove denied a reasonable accommodation under the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and alleging that N.G. was diagnosed with multiple mental health disorders requiring an emotional support dog. Guenther claimed selective enforcement of HOA rules, pointing out that neighboring units had grandfathered fences. She sought declarations regarding violations of her constitutional rights and the FHA, permission to construct the fence, and attorney fees.

Walnut Grove responded on March 7, 2019, asserting that their suggested alternatives were reasonable and compliant with the bylaws. The court held a trial on June 25, 2020, and on July 17, 2020, dismissed Guenther's complaint, determining she did not meet the burden of proof necessary to establish that N.G. qualified as a "handicapped person" under the FHA or that the requested accommodation was essential for equal use and enjoyment of the premises.

Exhibit 2 included a doctor’s note from August 12, 2019, confirming N.G.'s diagnoses of major depressive disorder and anxiety disorder, noting that her dog provides significant comfort and health benefits. However, N.G. testified she was diagnosed around 2015 and was no longer receiving treatment or medication at the time of trial. The court concluded that Guenther did not demonstrate that N.G. had a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits her major life activities, thus failing to classify her as handicapped under the Fair Housing Act (FHA). Furthermore, the court found insufficient proof that the requested accommodation was essential for N.G. to enjoy Guenther’s home. N.G. primarily resides in Lincoln and can interact with dogs at Guenther’s property. Evidence showed that N.G. could utilize a neighbor's fenced yard for the dogs, and Guenther presented no proof that outdoor dogs in that space were necessary for N.G.'s equal enjoyment of the home. Guenther subsequently appealed, asserting five errors, including the court's findings regarding N.G.'s handicap status and the necessity of the accommodation. The appellate court reviews factual issues de novo, acknowledging the trial court's credibility determinations. The analysis begins with Guenther's second assignment of error about the necessity of the accommodation, with Guenther claiming a fence would improve N.G.'s life quality and alleviate concerns about her dogs' safety. Walnut Grove contends that constructing a fence would violate HOA bylaws and was unnecessary for N.G.'s housing opportunities. The court referenced its prior ruling in Wilkison v. City of Arapahoe to guide the legal standards for reasonable accommodation claims under the FHA.

The district court correctly found that Guenther did not demonstrate that the requested accommodation—a fence in the common area—was necessary under the Fair Housing Act (FHA). The FHA prohibits discrimination against individuals with handicaps in housing, including the failure to make reasonable accommodations. To establish a reasonable accommodation claim, a plaintiff must prove that the accommodation is (1) reasonable, (2) necessary, and (3) affords the individual equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling, with the burden of proof resting on the plaintiff. Guenther proposed a burden-shifting analysis applicable to summary judgment contexts, which does not apply here as this case followed a bench trial. 

The court's focus was on whether Guenther provided sufficient evidence to show the necessity of the fence, linking "necessary" to the goal of equal opportunity. The court determined that Guenther failed to prove that, without the fence, she would be denied equal enjoyment of her housing. While it is acknowledged that N.G. suffers from mental health disorders and benefits from the family dogs, the evidence presented was inadequate to establish that the fence was essential for equal access to housing. Guenther’s citation of a related case did not support her claim of necessity, as it only recognized the fence as an accommodation, without establishing its essential nature.

Guenther failed to demonstrate that a fence is essential for N.G. to enjoy equal housing opportunities at Walnut Grove, as evidence indicated N.G. can use the animals freely without it. The necessity of an accommodation must be linked to alleviating the effects of a disability, but Guenther's only support for the fence's necessity was N.G.’s statement that it would provide peace of mind. This claim relies on the unsubstantiated assertion that the animals would be at risk of attacks by other dogs, which lacks evidence. Guenther's belief that a previous incident involved an attack was contradicted by her admission that the dog may have been hit by a car. Additionally, alternatives proposed by Walnut Grove—such as invisible fencing, a privacy fence, or tethering—were not shown to be ineffective, and using a neighbor's yard was presented as a viable option. Guenther's argument that she and N.G. are best suited to request an accommodation does not grant her the right to her preferred solution. Consequently, the district court correctly dismissed Guenther's claim for a reasonable accommodation under the Fair Housing Act (FHA), and an analysis of her other claims was unnecessary. Walnut Grove's request for attorney fees was deemed premature. The district court's decision is affirmed.