Please visit my author page at amazon.com
Karen Cohen v. David Clark, et al. IA Landlord Tenant
The plaintiff in this Johnson County, Iowa, case had a medically documented severe alergy to pet dander. She carries an EpiPen to protect against anapylactic shock. In 2015, she entered into a lease in the defendant's apartment building, after making sure that there was a no pet policy in the building. The lease provided that "no pets are allowed in the building."
Two months later, the other defendant moved into the building, and his lease contained the same no-pets provision. That tenant, however, produced a letter from his psychiatrist explaining that caring for an emotional support animal would be beneficial. The landlord's agent asked whether any tenants had alergies, and plaintiff responded that she did. The landlord contacted the Iowa Civil Rights Commission for guidance, and asked whether it would be a reasonable accomodation to rent an apartment in a different building.
The landlord allowed the dog, but assigned separate stairwells to the two tenants. The landlord looked into whether an "airlock" would be possible, but concluded that the cost of over $80,000 made it unfeasible.
The plaintiff suffered various symptoms, had to limit the time spent in her building, and had to take various medications. After a year, she went to small claims court and sued both the landlord and the other tenant for one month's rent as damages.
The small claims court concluded that everyone had been reasonably accomodated and threw out the case. The plaintiff then appealed to the district court, which affirmed the dismissal on the grounds that the law was not clear. The plaintiff then appealed, and the Iowa Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
The high court first noted that the case was one for breach of the lease and the covenant of quiet enjoyment. The small claims court had tossed it out on the grounds that the animal was a reasonable accomodation for the other tenant.
The court zeroed in on Iowa Code 216.8A(3)(b), which states that a landlord may refuse a reasonable accomodation if it "would constitute a direct threat to the health or safety of other persons."
The court noted that it was clear that the two tenants could not satisfactorily coexist in the same building. Either way, one of the tenants would suffer. Since there was no guidance as to whose acomodation was more compelling, the court ultimately concluded that priority in time would be the best way to resolve the situation. It analogized the case to cases involving seniority of employees. The court did note that medical documentation was necessary before giving priority to the first tenant.
The landlord argued that it should have a good faith defense, since it had acted in reliance on information given by the Iowa Civil Rights Commission. While the court was sympathetic, it noted that liability for breach of the lease is strict liability. In addition, the reliance was merely upon a telephone call, and not any kind of formal opinion. For these reasons, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded.
Justices Appel, McDonald, and Oxley dissented from the majority opinion, which had been penned by Justice Christensen.
No. 18-2173 (Iowa June 30, 2020).
Please see the original opinion for the court's exact language.
Advertisement:
Richard P. Clem is an attorney and continuing legal education (CLE) provider in Minnesota. He has been in private practice in the Twin Cities for 25 years. He has a J.D., cum laude, from Hamline University School of Law in St. Paul and a B.A. in History from the University of Minnesota. His reported cases include: Asociacion Nacional de Pescadores a Pequena Escala o Artesanales de Colombia v. Dow Quimica de Colombia, 988 F.2d 559, rehearing denied, 5 F.3d 530 (5th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1041 (1994); LaMott v. Apple Valley Health Care Center, 465 N.W.2d 585 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991); Abo el Ela v. State, 468 N.W.2d 580 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991).
For more information about attorney Clem, please visit
his website.
For more information about his
low-cost CLE programs, please visit his CLE page.
Return to index of case
summaries
Copyright 2020, Richard P. Clem.
Attorney Richard P. Clem is responsible for the content of this page.
Richard P. Clem, Attorney
PO Box 14957
Minneapolis, MN 55414
USA
Phone: +1-612-378-7751
e-mail: clem.law@usa.net
Minnesota Attorney Registration Number 0192648
Please visit my author page at amazon.com