| Brokers/Property Managers|Rental Agencies|Software|Education|Signs|Books|Blog|Helpful Links
 by Janet Portman, Inman News
He didn’t look me in the eye; his answers to my questions were evasive; and he began asking about improvements to the house that aren’t necessary. He has a job and appears to have enough income to pay the rent. He’s also a member of a racial minority. If I can’t point to anything besides my unease, am I breaking the law if I refuse to rent to him? –Jake W. A: Landlords are always on better ground if they can point to objective criteria, such as an inability to pay the rent, or a poor rental or bill-paying history, as the reason they turned someone away. Reasons like this don’t prove that the landlord did not have discriminatory motives — they just make it harder for rejected applicants to prove that the motive was anything but businesslike. The federal anti-discrimination laws, which apply everywhere and to most landlords, don’t specifically forbid landlords from using subjective measures like the ones you describe. You can take into account the applicant’s appearance, his demeanor, your estimate of his trustworthiness or truthfulness, or other subjective factors. Indeed, businesspeople utilize such conclusions and opinions in their daily affairs all the time. An owner may legally refuse to rent to an individual simply because he does not like him. But what you’re legally allowed to do, and the practical consequences to you if you take advantage of this liberty, can be two very different things. If your decision not to rent to someone rests on subjective reasons like this, you must understand that if the disappointed applicant is a member of a protected class, as is your prospect, your decision can be challenged. You must be able to prove to an judge or jury, before a government agency hearing or in a lawsuit, that these factors, and not an unwillingness to rent to members of this racial group, were the basis for your decision. Because it’s very hard to prove that you weren’t using subjective criteria to mask illegal discrimination, careful landlords’ lawyers will tell their clients never to rely on these amorphous reasons when rejecting a prospect. Instead, by doing the screening that all landlords should engage in, you’ll probably uncover objective facts that will justify, if not take the place of, your subjective conclusions. Take, for example, this prospect’s instant dissatisfaction with aspects of the property. Chances are that if you talk with this person’s past and current landlords, you will hear that he’s a demanding tenant who never leaves the owners in peace. Right there, you’ve got solid evidence to justify a rejection, and it has nothing to do with your personal radar. The bottom line, to borrow a presidential phrase, is to trust but verify. Your instincts may indeed be correct and have nothing to do with illegal discrimination, but in order to protect yourself, be sure to do the work needed to provide a defense. And never, of course, entertain personal dislikes that are founded on illegal discrimination. Janet Portman is an attorney and managing editor at Nolo. She specializes in landlord/tenant law and is co-author of “Every Landlord’s Legal Guide” and “Every Tenant’s Legal Guide”. She can be reached at janet@inman.com. Copyright 2009 Janet Portman See Janet Portman’s feature, Is It Legal to Exclude College Kids? For questions about our blog, contact our editor at kim@joinaaoa.org. American Apartment Owners Association offers discounts for landlords on products and services related to your rental investment, including real estate forms, tenant debt collection, tenant background checks, insurance and financing. Find out more at www.joinaaoa.org. To subscribe to our blog, click here.   Posted on Thursday, May 21st, 2009 at 12:52 pm and is filed under AAOA Forum. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
  You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. Please tell us what you thought of this article. We value your opinion.
2 Responses to “Dislike, or Discrimination?”
* required fields
  Add Super Saver to any membership for only $ 19.95! 
|
Join AAOA, Free!
       
|
ShareThis
Q: I’ve been advertising for a tenant to occupy my single-family rental, and interviewed someone whom I just don’t like. 
Categories
Very informative. Having had a tenant similiar to the one described, I regreted my decision to rent to her.
The tenant made frivious demands 2-3 times every month. She tried sueing me for an alleged defect in the storm door,which she claimed caused her to break her foot.I was elated when she decide to move.
[...] Parking Perks for Disabled Tenants by Janet Portman, Inman News Q: We just rented an apartment in a condominium complex. We chose it because it’s accessible for my wife, who uses a wheelchair. We were amazed when the condo owners’ association told us that we cannot have a close-in parking spot for our exclusive use. Instead, they’re suggesting we use a visitor’s spot, which is wheelchair accessible, for pick-up and drop-off, and park permanently in the unit’s designated spot. This spot is far away, on a slope, and next to a pillar — totally unsuited for wheelchair use. Is this legal? –Tom and Sally G.A: If you were renting in an apartment complex, the answer would be a sure and swift “no!” Apartment communities must give disabled tenants close-in parking if they need it in order to live comfortably and safely on the property. This rule will trump any policies to the contrary, such as a “first-come, first-served” approach to allocating parking spots. If giving a disabled tenant a close-in parking spot means that someone else more senior will be delayed, so be it. But your situation is a bit different. The condo you’re renting is part of a common-interest development. Typically, residents of these developments own their homes plus an undivided proportional interest (as tenants in common) in the common areas, such as the parking lots and recreation facilities. Condominium associations’ master deeds usually provide that the condominium’s parking spaces are for the non-exclusive use of unit owners. Your association may think that assigning you an exclusive, dedicated parking space would violate the deed provision and take away from the other tenants’ rights to use all of the common areas. If so, this type of change would require a material amendment to the master deed and approval by a specified percentage of the unit owners. All of this is well and good, but for one thing: Even if the condo association is reading the deed correctly, the federal Fair Housing Amendments Act may still trump. The condo association cannot enforce any aspect of the master deed that, on its face or as applied to a particular situation, violates federal law. (Gittleman v. Woodhaven Condominium Ass’n, Inc., 972 F.Supp. 894 (D.N.J. 1997).) This proposition isn’t so new — it was the basis for using civil rights laws to invalidate the “whites only” provisions that used to appear in some master deeds. No matter what the master deed says, you are entitled to a dedicated parking spot by virtue of the superior authority of the federal fair housing law.Janet Portman is an attorney and managing editor at Nolo. She specializes in landlord/tenant law and is co-author of “Every Landlord’s Legal Guide” and “Every Tenant’s Legal Guide.” She can be reached at janet@inman.com. Copyright 2009 Janet Portman See Janet Portman’s feature Dislike, or Discrimination? [...]