Kravis v. Justice of the Peace Court 17
| Decision Date | 17 April 2023 |
| Docket Number | 311,2022 |
| Parties | ROBERT KRAVIS, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. JUSTICE OF THE PEACE COURT 17, and MHC MCNICOL PLACE, LLC, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Delaware |
Submitted: March 1, 2023
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VAUGHN and TRAYNOR, Justices.
Upon consideration of the parties' briefs and the record on appeal, and after oral argument, it appears to the Court that:
(1) MHC McNicol Place, LLC ("MHC"), a corporate landlord leasing land for manufactured housing units, brought a fault-based eviction action in the Justice of the Peace Court against Robert Kravis, a tenant and homeowner. MHC claimed that Kravis violated his lease with MHC by allowing Kravis's grandson and the grandson's girlfriend, who had not been pre-approved by MHC, to stay at his residence. Kravis defended the eviction action by claiming that regardless of the tenant pre-authorization requirement under the lease, MHC was required to make reasonable accommodation for him when he returned home after a two-year nursing home stay. The reasonable accommodation, according to Kravis, was permitting his grandson and the grandson's girlfriend to reside with Kravis to assist with his recuperation.
(2) At trial in the Justice of the Peace Court, the court refused to consider Kravis's reasonable accommodation defense because MHC did not pre-approve the occupancy of the grandson and the grandson's girlfriend as required by the lease. Also, the court found their residency applications untimely and therefore did not allow Kravis to pursue discovery into the reasons MHC denied his later-submitted applications for his grandson and the grandson's girlfriend. The Justice of the Peace Court awarded MHC possession. The Superior Court affirmed.
(3) After considering the arguments on appeal, we reverse. Under state and federal fair housing laws, a tenant can seek reasonable accommodation from a landlord up to the time of eviction. Kravis requested reasonable accommodation before eviction. Also, the court should have permitted Kravis to pursue discovery into the reasons why MHC turned down Kravis's residency applications for his grandson and the grandson's girlfriend.
(4) MHC owns a lot that it leased to Kravis as a homeowner. The rental agreement required management approval for new residents.[1] Sometime before January 2020, Kravis's grandson and the grandson's girlfriend moved into Kravis's manufactured home.[2] Kravis alleged that, after they moved in, they provided support and caregiving services to him.[3] In January 2020, Kravis became sick and checked in to a nursing home, where he stayed until early 2022.[4] In October 2020, MHC became aware of the grandson and his girlfriend living in Kravis's home after a tree fell and damaged it.[5] That following May, MHC sent a letter to Kravis, informing him that he was in violation of the rental agreement.[6] The letter stated that Kravis had failed to fix the damage caused by the tree and had unauthorized occupants living in the home. On June 16, 2021, MHC sent a second letter, this time terminating the lease because Kravis had failed to correct the alleged violations.[7]The next day, MHC brought an eviction action against Kravis in the Justice of the Peace Court.
(5) Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the case progressed slowly through the eviction process. The court eventually scheduled a bench trial in December 2021.[8] The parties agreed that the trial would be limited to whether the presence of unauthorized occupants violated the lease. The court found in favor of MHC. It concluded that MHC had complied with the requirements of 25 Del C. § 7016,[9] the section of the Delaware Landlord-Tenant Code that governs termination of a lease for a manufactured home. The court refused to consider Kravis's only defense - his alleged disability and the need for caregiving assistance from his grandson and the grandson's girlfriend.[10] It reasoned that Kravis had not followed the process to get management approval for his grandson and the girlfriend to reside at the property and awarded possession to MHC.
(6) After the single judge Justice of the Peace awarded possession but before the next appeal, Kravis submitted a residency application for his grandson and the girlfriend.[11] MHC denied the applications on December 10, 2021 without any explanation. On December 23, 2021, Kravis appealed the order of possession to a three-justice panel in the Justice of the Peace Court.[12] On January 3, 2022, Kravis sent a letter to MHC asking for an explanation for the denial of the residency applications and requesting reasonable accommodation. The letter stated that Kravis had a traumatic brain injury and had suffered several strokes. He asked MHC to authorize the occupancy of his grandson and the girlfriend because they "provided and will continue to provide, once Mr. Kravis returns home, assistance to Mr. Kravis in his activities of daily living."[13]
(7) On February 4, 2022, MHC responded to the letter and stated that the application was denied because of the applicants' credit scores and criminal histories.[14] It also stated that the reasonable accommodation request was not ripe because Kravis was not presently residing at the property. He was still in the nursing home.
(8) Five days later, Kravis filed a motion for discovery.[15] He asked MHC to explain the reasons for denying the applications and to produce copies of the credit and criminal history reports used to deny the applications, as well as provide copies of the standards or guidelines that MHC uses to evaluate applications. Kravis also served MHC with a subpoena requesting similar information.[16] MHC moved to quash the subpoena. On February 15, 2022, the court denied the motion for discovery.[17] Kravis filed a motion for reconsideration.[18]
(9) The three-justice panel conducted a trial de novo on February 24, 2022.[19] Prior to the trial, the panel denied Kravis's motion for reconsideration and granted MHC's motion to quash the subpoena. It determined that the information Kravis was seeking in the discovery motion and the subpoena was related to the denial of the applications in "late December 2021/early January 2022."[20] It found that "because the applications were not submitted during the time this action was filed, nor during the timeframe allowed to cure, the information requested [was] irrelevant."[21] At the trial de novo, there was testimony from MHC about the unauthorized occupancy of the property by the grandson and his girlfriend.[22] There was also testimony that MHC had taken the proper steps under the Landlord-Tenant Code to effect the eviction. Kravis also testified that "the grandson and girlfriend were acting as caregivers for him because he had recently been released from the hospital."[23]
(10) The court acknowledged that Kravis was disabled and needed caregivers. But it also thought that his caregivers must be approved by management to continue residing at the property. It went on to say that "had [the] grandson and girlfriend applied in a timely manner, even prior to the judgment below, the outcome may have been different."[24] It reasoned that to "allow the tenant to remain, with no change in conditions, would set a precedent that would handicap every landlord faced with the eviction of aged or infirmed tenants, whose caregivers do not abide by the rules."[25] It awarded possession to MHC. On April 8, 2022, Kravis petitioned for a writ of certiorari to appeal the Justice of the Peace Court's decision to the Superior Court.[26] The Superior Court allowed the petition but affirmed the decision.[27] Without an appeal as of right to this Court, Kravis petitioned for a writ of certiorari.
(11) A writ of certiorari is not an ordinary appeal. Our review is on the record and we do not weigh the evidence or review anew the Justice of the Peace Court's factual findings.[28] We consider whether the Justice of the Peace Court "(1) committed errors of law, (2) exceeded its jurisdiction, or (3) proceeded irregularly."[29] And "[a] decision will be reversed for an error of law committed by the lower tribunal when the record affirmatively shows that the lower tribunal has 'proceeded illegally or manifestly contrary to law.'"[30]
(12) Kravis claims that the Justice of the Peace Court proceeded manifestly contrary to law. First, Kravis argues that the court erred by failing to consider his reasonable accommodation defense under 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B) and 6 Del. C. § 4603A(a)(2) (collectively, the "Fair Housing Acts").[31] He contends that the Fair Housing Acts prohibit discrimination based on disability and make it illegal to refuse to provide reasonable accommodation for the disability. He argues that the court was required to at least consider whether his accommodation request was reasonable under the Fair Housing Acts. According to Kravis, the court treated the Delaware Landlord-Tenant Code as the only relevant law.
(13) Under the Fair Housing Acts, discrimination in the rental of a dwelling because of a person's disability is illegal. Discrimination includes refusing "to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services when such accommodations may be necessary to afford such person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling."[32] Simply requesting an accommodation does not guarantee it will be accepted. The accommodation itself must be reasonable. In other words, the accommodation must be "one which would not impose an undue hardship or burden upon the entity making the accommodation."[33] In the context of an eviction action, the request can be made any time...
To continue reading
Request your trial