June 2, 2010

In Landmark Appellate Decision, Klinedinst Attorneys Stop Forced Participation of Landowners in Section 8 Housing Program Due to Disability Claim

LOS ANGELES - Klinedinst attorneys Greg A. Garbacz and G. Dale Britton recently won a landmark appellate decision that has broad implications for property owners, landlords and property managers providing accommodations to the disabled or participating in the federal Section 8 housing program.

In Sabi v. Sterling, the plaintiff was Elisheba Sabi, a 77 year-old tenant who rented an apartment from a building owned by Donald T. Sterling and managed by Beverly Hills Properties. The plaintiff suffered from several physical and psychological disabilities, and received supplemental Social Security income as a result. In 2003, the plaintiff became eligible to receive housing vouchers through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The vouchers, issued as part of the voluntary Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program, are designed to help low income individuals offset their rent through partial payment with vouchers. The federal program is designed to be voluntary, allowing landlords and property owners to accept vouchers if they so choose.

The plaintiff attempted to pay approximately 70% of her rent using Section 8 vouchers. However, when the defendant advised that they did not participate in the Section 8 program, the plaintiff insisted they were obligated under state disability laws to accept the federal housing vouchers as an accommodation for her disabilities. The defendant, one of the largest landowners in Southern California, declined to participate, but still allowed the plaintiff to continue to reside in the apartment. The plaintiff's family looked for other accommodations, but ultimately declined to move and decided that that the plaintiff's current residence was the most suitable. The plaintiff continues to rent from the defendant to this date.

The plaintiff filed suit in 2007 in an attempt to force the defendant to accept the vouchers as payment, and to compel its participation in the otherwise voluntary federal housing program. The plaintiff advanced two primary theories at trial. First, the plaintiff contended that declining the housing voucher violated California's disability discrimination laws. Second, the plaintiff claimed that declining the housing voucher violated the prohibition against "source of income" discrimination. However, a Los Angeles jury rejected plaintiff's theories of recovery after a lengthy trial, instead finding that no disability discrimination had occurred because there was no causal connection between the plaintiff's financial need for the Section 8 voucher and her disabilities.

"It is clear that the federal Section 8 voucher program is a completely voluntary program for landowners," noted Greg Garbacz, who served as lead trial counsel when the case went to a jury and argued the appeal before the Second District. "It also is clear that the tenant here was unable to show a causal link between her documented disabilities and the need for our clients to accept a federal housing voucher. Instead, what the plaintiff wanted was a purely financial accommodation, which was not required by California's fair housing laws," Garbacz added.

After the defense verdict, the plaintiff appealed to the Second District of the California Court of Appeal. Mr. Britton, who focuses almost exclusively on appellate issues, joined Mr. Garbacz in preparing detailed responses to the plaintiff's arguments. In this closely-watched case, both sides were joined by other organizations through amicus filings with the court. The court of appeal recently affirmed the jury's verdict, upholding the rights of landowners and property managers to choose whether or not to participate in the Section 8 voucher program.

"The appellate court rejected the housing rights advocates' overreaching arguments to force a property owner or manager to participate in an otherwise voluntary federal housing program," continued Mr. Garbacz. "This appellate win is a very large victory for California property owners and managers."

The case was Sabi v. Sterling (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 916. A copy of the published opinion can be downloaded by clicking here.

The Shareholders of Klinedinst congratulate Messrs. Garbacz and Britton for their hard work and tremendous result. For more information on Mr. Garbacz, please visit:

http://www.klinedinstlaw.com/profiles/attorney/greggarbacz/

And for additional background on Mr. Britton, please visit:

http://www.klinedinstlaw.com/profiles/attorney/dalebritton/

About Klinedinst PC

The award-winning business law firm of Klinedinst PC has achieved the highest rating for legal ability and ethical standards by Martindale-Hubbell. The firm and its attorneys are engaged in litigation and transactional law practice throughout California, serving clients from offices in San Diego, Orange County, Los Angeles, and Sacramento. For more information about the firm, please visit Klinedinst's comprehensive website at www.klinedinstlaw.com.

Greg A. Garbacz, Esq.
COO and Shareholder
Klinedinst PC

D. Dale Britton, Esq.
Shareholder
Klinedinst PC