{"id":831,"date":"2024-12-22T19:09:05","date_gmt":"2024-12-22T19:09:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/?p=831"},"modified":"2024-12-22T19:09:05","modified_gmt":"2024-12-22T19:09:05","slug":"fair-housing-act-fha-protects-homeowners-from-limits-on-their-christmas-display-if-the-reasons-for-those-limits-are-based-on-the-owners-religion-rather-than-the-scope-of-their-activities","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/2024\/12\/22\/fair-housing-act-fha-protects-homeowners-from-limits-on-their-christmas-display-if-the-reasons-for-those-limits-are-based-on-the-owners-religion-rather-than-the-scope-of-their-activities\/","title":{"rendered":"Fair Housing Act (FHA) protects homeowners from limits on their Christmas display if the reasons for those limits are based on the owners\u2019 religion rather than the scope of their activities"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The Ninth Circuit has held that a homeowners association may not be able to enforce its rules limiting the scope of a Christmas display by owners in the common scheme if those limits are  motivated by opposition to the owner\u2019s religion in violation of the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. \u00a73617. Morris v. W. Hayden Estates First Addition Homeowners Ass\u2019n<\/a>, Inc., 104 F.4th<\/sup> 1128 (9th<\/sup> Cir. 2024). The owners (Jeremy and Kristy Morris)  had engaged in these activities at their prior home where they had strung up thousands of Christmas lights, sang Christmas carols, employed costumed characters playing Santa Claus and the Grinch, and hosted a live nativity scene with a live camel. The family also offered free hot chocolate to visitors which led to 200 families visiting their property the first day with 20 to 100 families visiting the rest of the week.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When the owners put in an offer on a home in a new neighborhood, and notified the homeowners association (HOA) that their planned events might produce 900 visitors to their display during the Christmas season and that htye proposed to use a speaker system from 6:00 to 9:00 pm at night, the homeowners association responded that their proposed activities might violate three covenants: one limiting the property to residential use, a second prohibiting nuisances, and a third requiring external lighting to avoid excessive brightness. But the letter accompanying the communication noted that the community had some \u201cavowed atheists \u201d and the displays might cause them \u201cproblems.\u201d At a later HOA meeting, the members voted to disallow the owners\u2019 activities. The owners went ahead anyway, stringing up 200,000 lights, repeating the activities that they had done in their prior residence. Four commercial buses brought visitors to the area and traffic supervisors directed visitors through the local streets.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The owners sued the HOA for violating the Fair Housing Act (FHA). The court found no violation of \u00a73604(b) since the owners suffered no adverse effects from the letter from the HOA letting them know that their planned displays might violate the covenants governing their property. But the court found a violation of \u00a73617 because the HOA \u201cinterfered\u201d with their exercise of rights to enjoy their dwelling free from discrimination because of their religion. It did so (a) when the HOA told the Morrises that it did not way them to \u201cpress their beliefs on the community\u201d; (b) when a board member told the owner that it was enforcing the rules because someone on the association \u201cdoesn\u2019t like Christmas; and (c) by writing to the Morrises that their activities could cause problems for non-Christians in the neighborhood. These were sufficient to make an \u201cordinary listener would believe they indicate a \u201cpreference, limitation, or discrimination\u2026 because of religion.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The court found that a jury could reasonably have concluded that these actions were motivated by anti-Christian animus.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The court also found that the HOA\u2019s toleration of harassment of the Morisses was not a violation of the FHA because it was not clear that the HOA had the power to intervene in disputes among neighbors.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, the court also approved the trial court\u2019s offer to the HOA to have a new trial on the ground that it might have been prejudiced by evidence that was presented at trial but then held not to be admissible. And the court vacated an injunction stopping the Morrises from engaging in their Christmas activities because a new trial could plausibly determine that the HOA\u2019s limits on their celebration might well violate the FHA.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Judge Tashima dissented on the ground that the evidence showed the HOA was concerned with the size and scale of the events, not the owners\u2019 religion.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Ninth Circuit has held that a homeowners association may not be able to enforce its rules limiting the scope of a Christmas display by owners in the common scheme if those limits are  motivated by opposition to the owner\u2019s religion in violation of the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. \u00a73617. Morris v. W. Hayden Estates First Addition Homeowners Ass\u2019n, Inc., 104 F.4th 1128 (9th Cir. 2024). The owners (Jeremy and Kristy Morris)  had engaged in these activities at their prior home where they had strung up thousands of Christmas lights, sang Christmas carols, employed costumed characters playing Santa Claus and the Grinch, and hosted a live nativity scene with a live camel. The family also offered free hot chocolate to visitors which led to 200 families visiting their property the first day with 20 to 100 families visiting the rest of the week. When the owners put in an …<\/p>\n

Fair Housing Act (FHA) protects homeowners from limits on their Christmas display if the reasons for those limits are based on the owners\u2019 religion rather than the scope of their activities<\/span> Read More »<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":17,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[39,28,31,54,35],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-831","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-antidiscrimination-law","category-condominiums-and-homeowners-associations","category-fair-housing-act","category-religious-freedom","category-servitudes"],"featured_image_src":null,"featured_image_src_square":null,"author_info":{"display_name":"jsinger","author_link":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/author\/jsinger\/"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/831","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/17"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=831"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/831\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=831"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=831"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=831"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}