Burbank Apartments Tenant Association, et al. v. Kargman, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-051-16)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us   SJC-11872   BURBANK APARTMENTS TENANT ASSOCIATION & others[1]  vs.  WILLIAM M. KARGMAN[2] & others.[3] Suffolk.     December 8, 2015. – April 13, 2016.   Present:  Gants, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Duffly, Lenk, & Hines, JJ.     Housing.  Fair Housing Act.  Anti-Discrimination Law, Housing.       Civil action commenced in the Boston Division of the Housing Court Department on March 16, 2011.   A motion to dismiss was heard by Jeffrey M. Winik, J.   The Supreme Judicial Court granted an application for direct appellate review.     Ann E. Jochnick (James M. McCreight with her) for the plaintiffs. Janet Steckel Lundberg for the defendants. The following submitted briefs for amici curiae: John Cann, of Minnesota, for Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law & others. Harry J. Kelly & Joshua S. Barlow for Greater Boston Real Estate Board & others. Joseph D. Rich & Thomas Silverstein, of the District of Columbia, Oren M. Sellstrom, of California, & Laura Maslow-Armand for Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law & another. John J. McDermott, of Virginia, & Eleftherios Papadopoulos for National Apartment Association & another. Esme Caramello, Louis Fisher, Erika Johnson, Aditya Pai, & Katie Renzler for Fair Housing Center of Greater Boston & others. Roberta L. Rubin, Special Assistant Attorney General, for Department of Housing & Community Development.     CORDY, J.  This case arises out of a decision made by the defendants, the principals and owners of Burbank Apartments (Burbank), not to renew Burbank’s project-based Section 8 housing assistance payments contract (HAP) with the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) when its forty-year mortgage subsidy contract expired on March 31, 2011.  In lieu of those project-based subsidies, the defendants opted instead to accept from its tenants Section 8 enhanced vouchers, enabling tenants living in units subsidized on a project basis to remain as tenants under an alternative Federal housing program.[4]  See 42 U.S.C. § 1437f (2012). The plaintiffs, comprised of current and potential Burbank tenants, complained that Burbank’s decision violated § 3604 of the Federal Fair Housing Act (FHA or Title VIII), 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601 et seq. (2012), and the Massachusetts antidiscrimination law, G. L. c. 151B, § 4, both by virtue of intentional discrimination as well as disparate impact on members of otherwise protected classes of citizens.  In particular, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants’ decision not to renew their HAP […]

Read more...