Why Do We Need Reference to FHAA in CCIOA?
HB08-1135, which passed the House by a 61-1 vote on January 25, 2008 is currently awaiting action in the Senate. If passed by the Senate, the bill will add a provision to CCIOA in Section 106.5 that provides that no provision in a community’s governing documents may prohibit:
(g) REASONABLE MODIFICATIONS TO A UNIT AS NECESSARY TO
AFFORD A PERSON WITH DISABILITIES FULL USE AND ENJOYMENT OF THE
UNIT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FEDERAL "FAIR HOUSING ACT OF 1968",
42 U.S.C. SEC. 3604 (f) (3) (A).
We all know that this is the federal law, but I wonder what the implications are for including this provision in CCIOA. First, does this now give an owner an additional claim against associations for violation of CCIOA in addition to a violation of the FHAA? Presumably, yes. Again, we may say “so what”; but one reason to be concerned is attorney fees are awarded to the prevailing party if a claim is brought for failure to comply with CCIOA. This is significant because the FHAA doesn’t contain specific provisions allowing for the award of attorney fees. However, it is possible for the commission hearing a FHAA claim to award actual damages to a complaining party, which could, arguably include attorney fees. Only time, creative litigants and court decisions will tell us the long-term implications of this amendment.
Does this apply to time-span estates or are they specifically exempted?
It's pitiful that our state legislators have nothing better to do than to replicate federal law governing the same subject. If and when I become monarch, I will make it ulawful to perform so shoddily.
Does HB08-1135 provide for any direction or definition of what is reasonable? Can HOA's place any guidelines on modifications such as design and appearance attributes similar to other architectural controls? A typical scenario might be a ramp up to the front door--Can an HOA require it be painted to match the body or trim color of the house?
Thank you so much for pointing out all the ramifications. Of course it makes sense now, since this bill was written and sponsored by an attorney.