21-001302 Carlos Cordova vs. Solabella Condo. Association, Inc. Et Al, Miguel Quintero, And Reliable Property Management Services, Inc. Status: Closed Recommended Order on Friday, July 16, 2021.

Summary: Petitioner failed to demonstrate housing discrimination. Petitioner failed to notify condo association of mother's disability or need for accommodation and built a zen garden and fish pond in the common areas in violation of the association's rules.

S TATE OF F LORIDA

D IVISION OF A DMINISTRATIVE H EARINGS

C ARLOS C ORDOVA ,

Petitioner ,

vs. Case No. 21 - 1302

S OLABELLA C ONDO . A SSOCIATION , I NC . ,

E T A L .; M IGUEL Q UINTERO ; A ND

R ELIABLE P ROPERTY M ANAGEMENT

S ERVICES , I NC . ,

Respondents .

/

R ECOMMENDED O RDER

Pursuant to notice, a final hearing in this case was conducted before

Administrative Law Judge Mary Li Creasy by Zoom conference on June 17 ,

202 1 .

A PPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Carlos Cordova , pro se

Apartment 105

17345 Northwest 7th Avenue

Miami Gardens, Florida 33169

For Respondent s : Jeremy Koss, Esquire

Koss Law Firm, P.A.

Post Office Box 565661

Miami, Florida 33256

S TATEMENT OF T HE I SSUE S

Whether Petitioner was unlawfully discriminated against and denied a

reasonable accommodati on for h is mother Ô s alleged disability by Respondent s

regarding access to housing; and, if so, what is the appropriate remedy.

P RELIMINARY S TATEMENT

In November 2020, Petitioner, C a rlos Cordova, filed a Complaint with t he

United States Department of Housi ng and Urban Development ( Ñ HUD Ò ) ,

charging Respondents with discriminating against him in housing on the

basis of his mother Ô s disability . HUD transferred the complaint to the Florida

Commission on Human Relations ( Ñ FCHR Ò ) for investigation and a

determina tion of whether discrimination occurred. On March 10, 2021 , FCHR

issued a Determination, by which FCHR determined that reasonable cause

did not exist to believe that an unlawful housing practice occurred.

On April 12, 2021, Petitioner timely filed a Peti tion for Relief with FCHR. 1

FCHR transmitted the p etition to the Division of Administrative Hearings

( Ñ DOAH Ò ) on April 14, 2021, for the assignment of an administrative law

judge ( Ñ ALJ Ò ) to conduct a final hearing.

The final hearing was held as scheduled on June 17, 2021. At the final

hearing, Petitioner appeared pro se and testified on h is own behalf . 2 No

exhibits were admitted on behalf of Petitioner. 3 Respondent s , Solabella

1 The timeliness of PetitionerÔs filing was contested by RespondentsÔ Motion to Dismiss ,

which was denied by Order dated May 19, 2021.

2 Although the hearing was scheduled by Zoom, on the m orning of the hearing, Petitioner

claimed he was unable to connect video on his computer and agreed to appear only

telephonically rather than by video. Respondent acquiesced to PetitionerÔs request to appear

by telephone only rather than delay the proceedi ngs.

3 Prior to hearing , Petitioner electronically filed a series of e xhibits marked as A through N.

However , the parties were notified , in the May 4, 2021 , Notice of Hearing b y Zoom

Conference , that the proposed exhibits were to be provided by mail or hand delivery to

DOAH on or before June 14, 2021. Further, Petitioner was reminded of the need to provide

hard copies to the ALJ during the pre - hearing telephone conference on June 14, 2021 , and

indicated his intent to provide the necessary har d copies.

On June 8, 2021, in an Order on Amended Motion for Sanctions, the undersigned provided

further specific instructions regarding the presentation of exhibits, stating :

Proposed exhibits furnished to the Administrative Law Judge

must be: (1) in a three - r ing binder; (2) properly tabbed by

Condominium Association , Inc. ( Ñ Solabella Ò ) ; Miguel Quintero ; and Reliable

Prope rty Management Services , Inc. ( Ñ Reliable Ò ) (collectively referred to as

Ñ Respondents Ò ) , presented the testimony of Respondent, Miguel Quintero,

p resident of Solabella . Respondent Ô s Exhibits 1 through 19, 21 , and 24 were

admitted in evidence.

Neither party ordered a transcript of the final hearing. Both parties

timely filed proposed recommended orders, which were taken into

consideration in the drafting of this Recommended Order. Unless otherwise

indicated, citations to the Florida Statutes refer to the vers ion in effect at the

time of the alleged discrimination .

exhibit number corresponding to the exhibit numbers outlined

in the pre - hearing stipulation; and (3) preferably, Bate -

stamped or numbered with sequential page numbers for each

page of each exhibit, particularly lengthy co mposite exhibits.

Petitioner repeatedly refused to provide documents in response to RespondentsÔ Requests

for Production. More specifically , Petitioner failed to produce any medical records pertaining

to his motherÔs alleged disability or the alleged damages he suffered by Respondent s Ô removal

of P etitionerÔs gardens and koi pond. In an Order on Motion to Compel and f or Sanctions,

dated June 9, 2021, Petitioner was directed to immediately produce the requested documents

and advised that failure to do so would result in the exclusion of those documents from final

hearing. Respondent s issued a lawful subpoena to Dr. Carlos Danger, PetitionerÔs motherÔs

purported physician. Dr . Danger did not seek protection from the subpoena and failed to

appear for his deposition or to provide the requested documents. It should be noted that

P etitioner attempted to preclude Dr. Danger Ô s deposition by filing an objection to the

subpoena which was denied (See Order Denying Motion to Strike Subpoena dated May 24,

2021). Des pite the O rder compelling the production and testimony, Petitioner failed to

respond. Further, on the day prior to the final hearing, Petitioner filed a notice , entitled,

ÑBetter Planet, Better Future , Ò in which for the first time he indicated his refusal to provide

the undersigned hard copies of his intended exhibits due to his concern for the environment.

At the final hearing, Respondents renewed their Motion for Sanctions arguing that

PetitionerÔs on - going refusal to produce documents critical to R espondentsÔ defense

warranted the sanction of excluding all proposed exhibits of Petitioner. Petitioner

acknowledged that he had no intention of providing the materials requested and understood

the consequences. He intended to produce only those documents that he believed helpful to

his case or that he deemed Ñrelevant.Ò Accordingly, as a discovery sanction and for

PetitionerÔs repeated willful failure to abide by the O rders of this tribunal, Petitioner was not

allowed to introduce any exhibits at final hea ring.

F INDINGS OF F ACT

The Parties

1. This matter involves a Complaint of housing discrimination filed by

Petitioner against Respondent s . Petitioner purchased a condominium

(townhome) unit, at Solabella i n Miami Gardens, Florida , in August 2007,

where he has continuously resided with his mother, Elvira Suarez, through

the present time.

2. Solabella is run by a Board whose p resident is currently Respondent,

M r. Quintero , who has served in th is capacity sinc e 2015 . The common areas

of the condominium complex are managed by Respondent, Reliable.

Restriction on Modifications of the Common Areas

3. As a townhome owner at Solabella, Petitioner is bound by the

Declaration, By l aws, and R ules and R egulations of Sola bella ( referred to

collectively as Ñ controlling documents Ò ) . The Board is obligated to enforce the

rules and regulations. In fact, at one time , Petitioner served on the Solabella

Board . Petitioner agrees that these rules and regulations are important to

en sure the safety of residents and visitors, as well as to maintain the uniform

appearance of the property, which is a primary reason Solabella Ô s residents

choose to live there.

4. Both Florida con dominium law and Solabella Ô s Declaration provide s for

Ñ common areas Ò outside the units themselves which are owned and

maintained by Solabella for the mutual benefit of all residences. Solabella Ô s

controlling documents also define Ñ limited common areas Ò to include the front

entry way of each unit and the concrete ter races in the back of each unit .

These limited common areas are to be maintained by the owner of the

individual condominium unit to which they are attached.

5. The controlling document s place certain limitations on unit owners

regarding the types of modific ations permitted to the common areas and

limited common areas. Solabella Ôs Declaration (Respondent Ô s Ex. 1) provides

in relevant part:

20.1.2 Alterations . No Co ndominium U nit O wner

shall make any alterations in the building or the

common elements which are to be maintained by

the Association or remove any portion thereof or

make any additions they are to or do anything

which would or might jeopardize or impair the

safety or soundness of the B uilding, the C ommon

E lements or the L imited C ommon E lements or

w hich, in the sole opinion of the B oard, would

detrimentally affect the architectural design of the

B uilding without first obtaining the written

consent of the B oard.

20.1.3 Painting and B oard A pproval. No

C ondominium U nit O wner shall paint, refurbish,

sta in, alter, decorate, repair, replace or change the

C ommon E lements or any outside or exterior

portion of the B uilding maintained by the

Association, including terraces, doors or window

frames (except for replacing windowpanes), etc.,

except as otherwise pr ovided herein with respect to

Terrace floors. No C ondominium U nit O wner shall

have any exterior lighting fixtures, mailboxes,

window screens, screen doors, door bells, awnings,

hurricane shutters, hardware or similar items

installed which are not consisten t with the general

architecture of the B uilding maintained by the

Association without first obtaining specific written

approval of the B oard.

6. Solabella Ô s Rules and Regulations also restrict modifications to the

common areas as follows:

2. The exterior of the Condominium Units and all

other areas appurtenant to a Condominium Unit

shall not be painted, decorated or modified by any

Condominium Unit Owner in any manner without

the prior written consent of the Association by its

Board, which consent may be w ithheld on purely

aesthetic grounds within the sole discretion of the

Board.

* * *

4. No personal articles shall be allowed to stand on

any portion of the Common Elements, other than

the T erraces.

The Circumstances Giving Rise to this Dispute

7. In 2015, Petitioner made minor modifications to the common area s

immediately outside his entryway and back t errace. Petitioner added some

plants and a small Buddha statue. Petitioner neither sought nor obtained

permission from the Board to make these chan ges. No one brought to

P etitioner Ô s attention that he was violating the controlling documents of

Solabella.

8. In March 2018, P etitioner made major modifications to the common

areas next to his entryway and beyond the terrace behind his unit. Again,

P etiti oner failed to seek or obtain the permission of the B oard prior to

making these changes. With the assistance of a friend, Petitioner installed

additional landscaping, statues, lighting, and a Koi pond. Petitioner dug a

hole for the pond and lined it with p lastic. He filled the hole with water and

connected the pond to a fountain. The fountain had a pump connected to an

electrical outlet. Petitioner elevated the garden and the pond above - ground

and used rocks and bricks as a border. Petitioner admits that no other unit

owner has modified the areas around their entries or back terraces to this

extent.

9. Petitioner alleges that he made these modifications for his mother to

enjoy the unit in which they live. According to Petitioner, the unit is very

dark inside , and he believes that sunlight would help her Ñ disability. Ò

Petitioner claims that a fter meeting with his mother Ô s doctor, Petitioner

believed that enhanced Ñ Z en Ò gardens and Ñ therapy fish Ò would motivate her

to get up in the morning and give her a purpos e. Petitioner described

vegetable gardening as his mother Ô s Ñ hobby. Ò Petitioner testified that his

mother receives Social Security disability benefits but failed to provide any

evidence of the nature or extent of his mother Ô s alleged disability.

10 . Petiti oner admits that his mother was able to sit outside either in the

entryway or on the back terrace to enjoy the sunshine. Petitioner Ô s mother

was observed , over the last three years , outside walking around the Solabella

community premises. Nothing precluded Petitioner from setting up a fish

tank inside the unit or on the back terrace or from adding additional lighting

to the inside of his unit.

1 1 . In July 2019, P etitioner Ô s significant modifications to the common area

w ere noticed on a routine inspection by R eliable and brought to the attention

of the B oard. On July 31, 2019, a representative of Reliable advised

P etitioner that the gardens and fish pond would need to be removed.

Petitioner responded by an email to R eliable and Mr. Quintero stating,

Ñ please n ote I will be glad to remove the pond once every apartment in the

community meets the condo regulations including the multiple units rented

by Miguel [Quintero]. Ò Petitioner also stated, Ñ Additionally, the projects I

have done in my property are to beautif y the community and enhance the

place we LIVE IN. Ò Petitioner made no mention of his mother Ô s alleged

disability or the need for a reasonable accommodation. Petitioner also took no

action to remove the areas he added to the common area.

1 2 . On August 1, 20 19, Solabella issued a Ñ Violation Notice Ò to Petitioner ,

that states:

Architectural changes must be approved by the

Association so that we preserve the appearance and

A rchitectural harmony of the community. This

helps us all to protect the values of our pr operty.

VIOLATION : 1 - PERSONAL DECOATIVE ITEMS

PLACED IN COMMON AREA (I.E., WATER

FOUNTAIN, ROCKS, BRICKS, PLANTERS, ETC.)

MUST BE REMOVED.

2 Ï ILLEGAL ALTERATIONS TO COMMON

AREA.

ACTION NEEDED : PLEASE REMOVE ANY AND

ALL DECORATIVE ITEMS AFOREMENTIONED

AND REVERSE ALTERATIONS MADE TO

COMMON AREAS TO ORIGINAL STATE

DATE OF COMPLIANCE: 15 DAYS FROM

RECEIPT OF T HIS LETTER.

1 3 . On August 23, 2019, Solabella sent a Ñ Second Notice of Violation Ò to

Petitioner citing the same violations and action needed. Pet itioner was

instructed he had ten days within which to comply. In response to the s econd

n otice, Petitioner took no action.

1 4 . On January 27, 2020, Solabella Ô s lawyer, the Law Offices of Frank

Perez - Siam, provided a third notice of violation by letter. Th is letter stated :

Specifically, the violations involve the placement of

planter retaining walls in the common areas in the

front and rear of your property (see pictures). As

you well know, common areas are the property of

the Association and you are not pe rmitted to place

objects in the common areas. This is your final

notice before the Association either removes the

items from the common areas at your expense or

proceeds with legal action to require you to remove

the items.

Once again, Petitioner chose to do nothing in response to this notice of

violation.

1 5 . After five months with no response to the third notice of violation,

Solabella sent a landscaper to Petitioner Ô s unit on June 27, 2020 , to remove

the structures, including the gardens and Koi pond. P etitioner greeted the

landscaping crew with a machete in his hand. Based on P etitioner Ô s

demeanor, the landscaping crew left rather than engage in a confrontation.

1 6 . On June 30, 2020, P etitioner sent a lengthy email to Mr. Quintero in

which he expressed a desire to have an Ñ amicable solution Ò to the violations.

Petitioner indicated his unwillingness to because he believed there was both

an unfair and an un equal enforcement of the regulations. Further, P etitioner

indicated that he made the modifications :

m aking sure the value of my property would not be

negative impacted. As a contrary in today Ô s market,

where prices fluctuate so easily, I was adding

something that will make my property more

competitive and wanted than others . È I must let

you know that I w ould not tolerate any [sic] the

presence of strangers in my property and any

pretentious [s ic ] of removing anything I have added

to my unit without proper court order indicating

the approval to remove the items. As homeowner

and using the right given by th e law I will defend

my property from any actions that will jeopardize

the well - being of my unit.

1 7 . Noticeably absent from P etitioner Ô s email was any mention of his

mother Ô s alleged disability or need for a reasonable accommodation

associated with the mo difications P etitioner made to the common areas.

1 8 . On July 17, 2020, Mr. Quintero, as p resident of the Board, sent a

letter to P etitioner. In this letter, Petitioner was reminded that he violated

the community rules to the detriment of the community and that the B oard

would not negotiate with him because he was violating Solabella Ô s Bylaws.

Petitioner was told he had a maximum period of seven days to eliminate the

alterations or the management company would hire a demolition team and

Petitioner would be r esponsible for the expenses incurred for the removal of

the gardens and pond.

1 9 . On September 3, 2020, a landscaping crew arrived to remove the

gardens, pond , and associated structures (raised beds, rocks, bricks, lighting)

that had been erected in the co mmon areas by Petitioner. Mr. Quintero was

present at the request of the landscaper. Petitioner again confronted the

landscaping crew with a machete outside his unit. Both the landscaper and

Petitioner called the police as the situation escalated. Mr. Quin tero showed

the police the prior correspondence with Petitioner advising him of the

violations on four separate occasions. While the police watched, the

landscaping crew removed Petitioner Ô s additions to the common areas

including the gardens and Koi pond while both Petitioner and his mother

watched.

20 . Importantly, at no time prior to either the installation or removal of

the gardens and pond had Petitioner advised the B oard that his mother had a

disability or needed these additions to the common area as a Ñ reasonable

accommodation Ò for said disability. After removal of the gardens and pond,

P etitioner filed a complaint of housing discrimination in which he alleged his

disabled mother was precluded from using and enjoying the premises due to

Respondents Ô r emoval of these items.

2 1 . P etitioner never disclose d to HUD, FCHR, or R espondents the nature

and extent of Ms. Suarez Ô s disability. Despite the undersigned Ô s O rder to

produce records relative to Ms. Suarez Ô s medical treatment and any

documents reflecting her need for a reasonable accommodation , Petitioner

refused to provide or produce any evidence of the same , either during

discovery , or the final hearing c iting privacy concerns .

C ONCLUSIONS O F L AW

2 2 . DOAH has jurisdiction over the parties and subject ma tter in this

case. §§ 120.569 , 120.57, Fla. Stat.

23. Section 760.23 , Florida Statutes, states that it is an unlawful housing

practice to discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or

privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the pro vision of services or

facilities in connection therewith, because of handicap or familial status.

24. FCHR and Florida courts have determined that federal discrimination

laws should be used as guidance when construing provisions of section 760.

See Valenzu ela v. GlobeGround N. Am., LLC , 18 So. 3d 17 (Fla. 3d DCA

2009); Brand v. Fla. Power Corp. , 633 So. 2d 504, 509 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994).

25. The burden of proving that Respondents engaged in unlawful housing

discrimination belongs to Petitioner. See, e.g., Lor en v. Sasser , 309 F.3d 1296,

1302 (11th Cir. 2002).

Establishing Discrimination

2 6 . Discriminatory intent can be established through direct or

circumstantial evidence. Schoenfeld v. Babbitt , 168 F.3d 1257, 1266 (11th Cir.

1999). Direct evidence of discrimi nation is evidence that, if believed,

establishes the existence of discriminatory intent behind an employment

decision without inference or presumption. Maynard v. Bd. of Regents ,

342 F.3d 1281, 1289 (11th Cir. 2003).

2 7 . Ñ Direct evidence is composed of Ó o nly the most blatant remarks, whose

intent could be nothing other than to discriminate Ô on the basis of some

impermissible factor. Ò Schoenfeld , 168 F.3d at 1266. Petitioner presented no

direct evidence of handicap or familial status discrimination.

2 8 . Ñ [D ]irect evidence of intent is often unavailable. Ò Shealy v. City of

Albany, Ga. , 89 F.3d 804, 806 (11th Cir. 1996). For this reason, those who

claim to be victims of intentional discrimination Ñ are permitted to establish

their cases through inferential and circumstantial proof. Ò Kline v. Tenn.

Valley Auth. , 128 F.3d 337, 348 (6th Cir. 1997).

2 9 . Where a complainant attempts to prove intentional discrimination

using circumstantial evidence, the shifting burden analysis established by

the United States Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corporation. v.

Green , 411 U.S. 792 (1973), and Texas Department of Community Affairs v.

Burdine , 450 U.S. 248 (1981), is applied. Under this well - established model of

proof, the complainant bears the initial burden of establish ing a prima facie

case of discrimination. Once this burden is met, the respondent has the

burden of articulating a legitimate non - discriminatory basis for the adverse

action. The complainant must then come forward with specific evidence

demonstrating that the reasons given by the respondent are a pretext for

discrimination .

Housing Discrimination

30 . In the instant case, Petitioner alleges that he and h is mother were

unlawfully discriminated against regarding the terms and conditions of their

residency at S olabella because of h is mother Ô s alleged handicap.

3 1 . T o establish a Ñ failure to accommodate Ò violation of section 760.23(2),

the following elements must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence:

(1) Petitioner belongs to a class of persons whom

the Florida Fair Housing Act protects from

unlawful discrimination because of race, color,

national origin, sex, disability, familial status, or

religion;

(2) Petitioner must have been qualified, ready,

willing, and able to receive the services or use

facili ties consistent with the terms, policies, and

procedures of Respondent;

(3) Petitioner must have requested services or use

of facilities, or attempted to use facilities consistent

with the terms and conditions, policies, and

procedures established by Resp ondent for all

persons who were qualified or eligible for services

or use of facilities; and

(4) Respondents, with knowledge of Petitioner Ô s

protected class, must have willfully failed or

refused to provide services to Petitioner or permit

use of the fac ilities under the same terms and

conditions that were applicable to all persons who

were qualified or eligible for services or use of the

facilities.

See, e.g., Noah v. Assor , 379 F. Supp. 3d 1284, 1298 (S.D. Fla. 2019);

Woolington v. 1st Orlando Real Es tate Servs., Inc. , 2011 WL 3919715, at *2

( M.D. Fla., Sept. 7, 2011 ) .

Petitioner Failed to meet His Burden of Proof

3 2 . In this case, Petitioner provided no direct evidence of discrimination.

Accordingly, the burden - shifting analysis is appropriate. Petit ioner failed to

demonstrate any element of the prima facie case.

33. A person is considered a Ñ qualified individual Ò with a disability under

the F air Housing Act i f that individual : (1) has Ñ a physical or mental

impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of

such individual Ò ; (2) has Ñ a record of such an impairment Ò ; or (3) is a person

Ñ regarded as having such an impairment. Ò 42 U.S.C. § 3602(h).

3 4 . Petitioner claims his mother is disabled and offered his self - serving

stat ement alone, that she has been receiving S ocial S ecurity benefits since

some date prior to the building of the pond and gardens , as proof thereof . No

verification or corroboration was offered, such as a physician Ô s affidavit, an

affidavit from P etitioner Ô s mother , or affidavit of a social worker.

35. The receipt of Social Security disability benefits, standing alone, is

insufficient to demonstrate ÑdisabilityÒ within the meaning of the Fair

Housing Act. Although a rece i pt for the payment of benefits may ref erence

Ñdisability,Ò it gives no information about the nature, extent of the referenced

disability, and thus no evidence that the disability meets the statutory

definition.

36. Determinations of disability under the Ameri c ans w ith Disabilities Act

(ÑADAÒ) and the Social Security system Ñdiverge significantly in their

respective legal standards and statutory intent ... ,Ò Weiler v. Household

Finance Corporation, 101 F.3d 519, 523 - 24 (7th Cir. 1996), and disability

Ñdeterminations made by the Social Security Administration concerning

disability are not dispositive findings for claims arising under the ADA.Ò Id.

at 524. See also Cleveland v. Policy Mgmt . Sys . Corp . , 526 U.S. 795, 80 1 ,

119 S. Ct. 1597 (1999). (Statement of Ñtotal disabilityÒ on Social Security

b enefits application does not estop a claimant under the ADA from claiming

qualification to work.)

37. The ADA definition of ÑdisabilityÒ ( see 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2)(A)) is

indistinguishable from the definition of ÑhandicapÒ found under £ 802(h) of

the Fair Housing Act: both require a physical or mental impairment that

substantially limits the person in one or more major life activities. There is

no reason why a Social Security Administration determination of disability

would bind the parties in a f air h ousin g claim. For these reasons, Petitioner

completely failed to produce prima facie evidence that his mother suffers

from a Ñ[h]andicap , Ò 42 U.S.C. § 3602(h) , within the meaning of the Fair

Housing Act.

3 8 . Even if Petitioner demonstrated his mother suffered f rom a qualifying

disability under the Fair Housing Act, he cannot satisfy the remaining

elements of the prima facie case.

3 9 . Petitioner was not ready, willing, and able to Ñ receive the services or

use facilities consistent with the terms, policies, and pr ocedures of

Respondent . Ò Prior to making any modifications to the common area,

Petitioner was required to seek and receive Board approval. Instead,

Petitioner not only failed to seek Board approval , but failed to abide by the

Board Ô s directives to remove t he modifications despite receiving multiple

warnings and an extended timeframe within which to do so.

40 . Similarly, Petitioner never Ñ requested services or use of facilities, or

attempted to use facilities consistent with the terms and conditions, policie s,

and procedures established by Respondent . Ò

41 . As described in the fourth prong of the prima facie case, r elevant to

Petitioner Ô s Fair Housing Act claim is not only the existence of a disability ,

but whether Respondents were aware of the disability when making the

decision to remove the gardens and pond.

4 2 . Respondents testified that Petitioner Ô s mother is not visibly disabled ,

an d at no time were they aware that she suffered from any condition that

affects her major life activities. Petitioner only not ified Respondents of his

mother Ô s alleged need for an accommodation for some unspecified disability

after the removal of the gardens and pond.

4 3 . It is axiomatic that Respondents needed to know of a need for any

accommodation before they could consider wh ether a request is reasonable or

would enable a resident to have full use and enjoyment of the premises. It is

not possible to discriminate against an individual on the basis of Ñ disability Ò

if the accused has no knowledge of said disability.

4 4 . Even assu ming arguendo that Petitioner met his burden, Respondents

offered a legitimate, non - discriminatory reason for the removal of the pond

and gardens. They were wholly inconsistent with the uniform appearance of

the common areas and violated Solabella Ô s contro lling documents, resulting

in possible liability for the Association.

4 5 . Ñ Condominium ownership and residency is unique in that

condominium owners agree to Ó for the good of the majority, restrict [] rights

residents would otherwise have were they living i n private separate

residence. ÔÒ Neuman v. Grandview at Emerald Hills, Inc. , 861 So. 2d 494, 497

(Fla. 4th DCA 2003). The Neuman court describes how unit owners in a

condominium give up certain of their rights and hand over the regulation of

the units to an association to best maintain the entire community. Ñ In

exchange, unit owners know that their neighbors will maintain their property

in a suitable fashion, and that the common areas will be kept in proper order

for the use and enjoyment of all the resident s. Ò Id. , as quoted in Savannah

Club Worship Serv., Inc. v. Savannah Club Homeowners Ô Ass Ô n, Inc. ,

456 F. Supp. 2d 1223, 1231 (S.D. Fla. 2005 ).

4 6 . Petitioner was neither singled out for disparate treatment n or denied

a reasonable accommodation based on his mother Ô s alleged disability.

R ECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is

R ECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a

final order finding Respondents not liable for housing discrimination and

dismissing Petitioner Ô s Petition for Relief .

D ONE A ND E NTERED this 16th day of July , 2021 , in Tallahassee, Leon

County, Florida.

S

M ARY L I C REASY

Administrative Law Judge

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

(850) 488 - 9675

www.doah.s tate.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 16th day of July , 2021 .

C OPIES F URNISHED :

Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Carlos Cordova

Florida Commission on Human Relations Apartment 105

4075 Esplanade Way , Room 110 17345 Northwest 7th Avenue

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 7020 Miami Gardens, Florida 33169

Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel Jeremy Koss, Esquire

Florida Commission on Human Relations Koss Law Firm , P.A.

4075 Esplanade Way , Room 110 Post Office Box 565661

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 7020 Miami, Florida 33256

N OTICE OF R IGHT T O S UBMIT E XCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within 15 days from

the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended

Order should be fi led with the agency that will issue the Final Order in this

case.