Montana Human Rights Act—Illegal Discrimination

Notwithstanding the presumption of enforceability, there are plenty of reasons why an individual covenant or restriction might be unenforceable. The reasons most commonly cited by courts are: Procedurally flawed enactment; substantive invalidity; violation of rights of homeowners, or inconsistent, arbitrary, or capricious enforcement. Any one of these flaws can render a covenant effectively void. One flawed covenant won’t necessarily invalidate the rest of a community’s declaration—and sometimes courts will interpret a questionable covenant in a manner that permits enforcement—but, for the most part, a covenant that fails any of these criteria will be unenforceable.

Up until the 1968 passage of the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”), homeowners associations had a lot of leeway to interfere with religious practices or promote particular denominations.  But now that the FHA is firmly entrenched in the national lexicon, there are significant limitations on the power an HOA has to restrict religion.  The Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §3604(b), makes it unlawful for “housing providers” (including community associations) “[t]o discriminate 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 therewith, because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin.”

Restrictive covenants in homeowners’ associations are not unusual—nearly every community has them.  For homeowners, the restrictions are something of a trade-off.  You accept a limitation on how you can use your property because, if everyone else in the community does, too, the neighborhood as a whole will be better off.  ‘If we all agree to keep our yards well-maintained and our houses painted nice-looking colors, we all benefit from a more attractive neighborhood with higher property values.’ Courts view HOA restrictions along the same lines as any contract and presume the restrictions are enforceable unless there’s a specific reason why the restriction should not be enforced.

Zoning ordinances and HOA covenants often disallow commercial uses of properties in residential areas.  A group home that accepts payments for services provided at the home is almost certainly engaging in commercial activity.  But, although the plain language of an ordinance or covenant might appear to prohibit such a group home, federal law forbids state and local governments or HOAs from impeding certain protected uses (more on that later). Importantly, there are different categories of group homes, and the laws protecting each home depend in large part on what kind of home is involved.

Pets can be a welcome addition to your family.  A loyal dog, a comforting cat, or even a calming fish tank can vivify a household and provide a soothing distraction from the daily grind.  But, unfortunately, pets can also occasionally become an annoyance to neighbors.  Overly abundant cats or noisy dogs negatively affect a development’s quality of life and aesthetic appeal.  Aiming to curtail potential nuisances, many homeowners’ associations have adopted pet restrictions within their declarations, establishing rules regulating members’ pet choices and practices. Learn what homeowners' association can (and cannot) do under the law when it comes to enforcing pet restrictions.

As part of the Fair Housing Act, Congress granted the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) the authority to adopt rules to meet the statute’s objectives. In October of 2016, the department completed the formal rulemaking process and published the final rules that are now law. One of the new rules codified by HUD can potentially significantly affect the number of harassment claims an HOA will face. Today we will focus on what might be the most significant new rule: liability for discriminatory housing practices, found at 24 C.F.R. §100.7(a)(1)(iii).