In Riverbrook v Fabode, a published Michigan Court of Appeals opinion, the landlord started eviction proceedings against a tenant when her co-occupant obtained an alleged pit bull mix, an apparently forbidden breed. The brother obtained a letter from a limited license professional counselor declaring a need for an emotional support animal (ESA). Skeptical of the letter, the landlord requested additional information from the counselor, who replied in general terms. The landlord proceeded with an eviction. The tenants opposed the eviction.
The court limited the landlord’s questioning of the counselor and other challenges to the credibility of the evidence, believing that the Fair Housing Act limited the inquiry. The court denied the eviction and the landlord appealed, first to the circuit court which affirmed the district court and then to the Michigan Court of Appeals, which reversed and remanded.
The court held that the lower courts avoided their role as gatekeeper to determine the validity and reliability of the evidence presented by the tenant in support of his claim of disability. Because no examination was allowed, the case was remanded to the trial court for hearing.
It appears from the opinion that the brother found the counselor from a web site which promised a doctor’s letter to support a request for an ESA for a fee of $179, that the tenant contacted the counselor only after the landlord notified of the lease violation, and that the counselor issued her letter after only one brief phone call with the brother.
UPDATE: in an Order dated November 29, 2022, the Michigan Supreme Court vacated a portion of the lower court’s opinion to the extent it could be read to stand for the proposition that expert witness testimony is required in all cases where a person is seeking a reasonable accommodation under either the Fair Housing Act or the Persons With Disabilities Civil Rights Act.