Martha Coakley, the Massachusetts attorney general, recently announced that two real estate companies had settled in two anti-discrimination and lead paint lawsuits[1]. The company in question, Top Real Estate & Development, Inc., refused to rent or show an apartment to a pregnant woman. The woman wished to view the apartment in May 2010 at eight months pregnant. Her residence in the apartment with her young child would have compelled the owners to comply with state lead paint laws. She and another woman with a young daughter were both told that the apartment was not appropriate and could not be viewed. Testers from the Fair Housing Center of Greater Boston had similar experiences, which led to the lawsuit.
It is illegal to discriminate against individuals applying for housing due to young children or due to the presence of young children that might “trigger an owners duty to eliminate lead hazards.” The defendants in the case will pay a total of $6,250 to the victims, state and the Fair Housing Center of Greater Boston. They also must attend anti-discrimination and housing training sessions. Coakley views the end result as a success, saying “Massachusetts is facing critical housing needs and compliance with the law is an important obligation.”
Do you think that these results are fair? Is it possible that the owners could not afford the renovations and hoped to avoid them? Does that matter?
Thank you for reading the Bryan Ellis Real Estate Letter!
Your comments and questions are welcomed below.
[1] http://www.legalnewsline.com/news/233019-coakley-settles-with-real-estate-companies
This is a tough nut to crack. The owners may have inadvertently been handed a gift. Had they rented the apartment to someone who later had a child, and that child developed lead poisoning, they would certainly have been looking at more than a few thousand dollars. No matter what the cost, they should bite the bullet and have the apartment(s) under their control stripped of any lead based paint, (by a qualified technician), and repainted. Sometimes investors have to make costly improvements and upgrades. Maybe it sucks, but that’s just part of the business.
Jim Myers
With all that must be considered in this case, I think that being upfront with the conditions of the apartment with regard to lead was the right thing to do especially since the woman was in her last trimester of pregnancy and had a small child as well. It was a good recommendation not for them to look at the apartment based on those findings. Common sense would have been important here for the parent to consider and try looking at something else instead of feeling “discriminated against” just for being given the truth about the apartment. If it had been me, I would have been thankful that the owner/potential landlord had come clean about it. But of course, that is just how I see things.
Additionally, I thank you for producing a great newsletter.
Thank you.
If Lanlords like this group would treat their ownership the way they are supposed to, as a “Business”, then this topic would be a moot point. What other business do you know of that can be non compliant with the law and stay in business for long? If you are going to be in the Investment Property “Business” then you have to run it like a business, and though we know all businesses have their ups and downs, you still have to prepare for on going “Business” expenses. In this case, you know what the law is, you should be prepared to deal with.