HOA Christmas dispute isn't over
The West Hayden Estates First Addition Homeowners Association’s attorneys provided this photo as evidence supporting their claim that hundreds of people were on the front yard and driveway of Jeremy Morris’s property during the family’s Christmas program. The image was included in court documents supporting a counterclaim filed last week in U.S. District Court following a trial in which a jury awarded Morris $75,000 on the grounds that the HOA discriminated against the Morris family on the basis of religious discrimination.
HAYDEN — Both sides of a legal dispute in the West Hayden Estates Homeowners Association filed new papers in the U.S. District Court last weekend.
In November, a federal jury awarded Jeremy and Kristy Morris $60,000 in compensatory damages and $15,000 in punitive damages after unanimously finding that the HOA had violated the Morrises’ rights under the Fair Housing Act.
HOA attorney Peter Smith petitioned the court Dec. 8 to throw out the jury’s decision as contrary to the law. Smith’s motion is based on Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 50(b). In his motion, Smith reiterated the arguments the HOA used in the federal trial, and submitted a proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.
The case wasn’t about religious discrimination, wrote Smith, but about property rights.
“The fundamental question in this case is whether the Association discriminated against Plaintiffs because of their religion, or whether the Association was upholding The Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions of West Hayden Estates,” Smith wrote in the Dec. 8 motion.
Smith also asked the court to negate the jury’s awards to the Morrises. The $60,000 in compensatory damages was based on Morris’s speculation about the costs of moving, wrote Smith.
“It can hardly be said that Plaintiffs compensatory damages relate to a ‘concrete loss’ that was caused by the Association,” wrote Smith.
The $15,000 in punitive damages should be reduced to zero because the HOA did nothing reprehensible against the Morrises, Smith explained.
“There was no evidence of any reprehensible acts by the Association.”
The HOA is also seeking a court injunction to prevent the Morrises from holding their Christmas program again. However, Morris said the family will not hold the event this year at their current location. If the injunction is granted, the Morrises will be responsible to pay for the HOA’s attorney fees.
During the trial, the HOA made a routine motion under FRCP 50(a), which the court denied. The HOA then made its FRCP 50(b) motion following the jury verdict. The bar for FRCP 50(b) motions is set high.
Smith explained that judgment as a matter of law can only be granted “where no reasonable juror” could reach a decision in favor of the opposing party. In this case, the Morrises won a unanimous decision by a federal jury which deliberated for 15 hours.
At the same time, the Morrises have asked the U.S. District Court to have their home de-annexed from the HOA. They are still potential targets for “further retaliation by the HOA by way of continued selective enforcement of rules,” wrote Morris.
Also, because the Morrises still belong to the HOA, they are just as liable to pay for the court’s award as are other members of the HOA, wrote Morris.
“The Fair Housing Act could never have intended that the winner of a FHA claim would be put into a position of paying the losing side’s attorney fees via increased dues,” he said.
By granting injunctive relief, the court would ensure the HOA could not target them again, and couldn’t put a lien on the Morrises’ home while they try to sell it to new buyers, Morris said.
Responses to all the motions are due to the court Dec. 21, Morris said. The judge will issue decisions after that date.