In Estate of Romig v Boulder Bluffs Condominiums, a published Michigan Court of Appeals opinion, the court held that Plaintiff’s claim of a violation of the Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act was barred by collateral estoppel.
A request was made to install a handrail along the front porch of a condominium unit. The intial request did not contain any information that the request was made on behalf of a handicapped person and was denied. When additional information including a doctor’s note was provided, the handrail was approved. The time period between the initial, unsupported request, and the approval, was two months. In the interim, the handicapped person fell twice.
The Plaintiff initially filed in federal court, which declined to take supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim. Ultimately, the federal court held that the condominium association did not violate the Fair Housing Act, 42 USC 3601, because the delay between the first request and the eventual approval was not unreasonable.
Plaintiff then filed suit in state court. After summary disposition in favor of defendants in the trial court, affirmance by the Court of Appeals, and consideration by the Michigan Supreme Court, the case was remanded to the trial court to consider whether the federal decision barred Plaintiff’s claims under the doctrine of collateral estoppel. After additional findings of fact in the trial court, the court of appeals held the claim under the PWDCRA was barred by the federal court’s finding that the delay was not unreasonable. It also held that Plaintiff did not establish that the initial denial of the request was the result of discrimination.
While condominium associations should move promptly on a request for modification related to a handicap, the law does not require an instant decision. Consideration of a request is an interactive process and there is room in the process for deliberation.