Landlords and community associations frequently face requests from residents with disabilities to modify properties for accessibility. These requests often raise questions about liability, insurance, and risk management.
A recent Palm Beach County appellate decision highlights how far landlords can go in placing conditions on modifications and how courts and fair housing boards analyze those conditions under the Fair Housing Act (FHA).
Case Background
This case arose out of William and Dorothy Odierno’s dispute with the Woodhaven Condominium Association, Inc. (Palm Beach County, Case No. 50-2024-CA-005471). The Odiernos, unit owners in a 55+ community, sought approval from the condo association in 2017 to install a chair lift on a common stairway. The Association approved the request subject to conditions:
(1) the Odiernos had to maintain a $1,000,000 liability insurance policy naming the Association as an additional insured; and
(2) they had to pay a small security deposit to cover removal or damage costs. The parties executed the Chair Lift Agreement on November 1, 2017.
Nearly four years later, in June 2021, the Odiernos filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Palm Beach County Office of Equal Opportunity, alleging that these conditions amounted to unlawful discrimination under the Fair Housing Act and the Palm Beach County Fair Housing Ordinance.
Fair Housing Board Findings
After a five-day hearing, the Palm Beach County Fair Housing Board issued its Final Order:
- Disparate Treatment Claim Rejected – The Odiernos failed to prove that they were treated differently than other residents.
- Security Deposit Permitted – A modest deposit was not discriminatory.
- Insurance Requirement Discriminatory – The $1,000,000 liability insurance requirement was found to be arbitrary and unsupported, amounting to a constructive denial of the modification.
With that Order in the unit owner’s favor, the Board ordered the following relief:
- $500 nominal damages.
- $5,000 civil penalty payable to the county.
- Injunctive relief: Association board required to undergo fair housing training and to eliminate the $1,000,000 insurance requirement.
- Attorney’s fees of $33,600 and costs of $4,559.94.
Appellate Court Decision
The Association petitioned for certiorari review in an attempt to correct the Fair Housing Board’s decision. On July 2, 2025, the Palm Beach County Circuit Court, acting in an appellate capacity, issued its ruling, mostly in favor of the unit owners.
The appellate panel applied the narrow “first-tier certiorari” standard:
- Was procedural due process afforded?
- Did the Board follow the essential requirements of law?
- Was the decision supported by competent substantial evidence?
The appellate court’s analysis includes the following:
- Factual/Legal Challenges Dismissed: The Court declined to re-weigh evidence and deferred to the Board’s findings.
- Attorney’s Fees Quashed: The Court struck the $33,600 award because the Board failed to make required lodestar findings.
- Partial Relief Granted: The petition was granted in part, denied in part. Liability, damages, penalties, and injunction remained intact.
Landlord Lessons
The Odierno case offers several lessons for landlords when dealing with a tenant’s request for reasonable accommodation or modification.
Conditions Must Be Evidence-Based, Not Arbitrary
- Always cite applicable legal authority for a condition (e.g., F.S. 718.111(11) on condominium insurance obligations).
- If requiring insurance, match coverage to actual policy requirements, not round numbers.
- Document the reasoning in writing: e.g. minutes, legal opinion letters, or insurance endorsements.
- Avoid one-size-fits-all numbers; tailor conditions to each request.
Tenant Objection Matters
- Treat tenant objections as a red flag to re-evaluate and as an indication that a legal battle may ensue later.
- If a tenant pushes back, revisit the condition with legal counsel and see if alternatives exist.
- Consider whether the condition is truly necessary for safety, liability, or compliance.
- Avoid being defensive. Show a willingness to negotiate or adjust if a condition seems too burdensome.
Reasonableness Is the Touchstone
- Apply a proportionality test: Is the cost proportional to the risk?
- Keep conditions narrowly tailored to address specific risks (e.g., insurance covering only the modification).
- Require only what is necessary to protect legitimate interests, not more.
- Where possible, offer tenants choices (e.g., different insurance levels or indemnification clauses).
Time-Barred Defenses Are Tricky
- Don’t assume old agreements are immune; continuing enforcement may restart liability.
- Periodically review and update contracts with tenants for compliance with current laws.
- Consider adopting a policy review schedule (e.g., every 3 years) for agreements that impose ongoing conditions.
- When inheriting old agreements (new management/board), conduct a compliance audit.
Civil Penalties Require Factor Analysis
- If faced with penalties, ask the agency to specify the statutory factors considered.
- Keep evidence showing good faith (following legal advice, open communication with tenants).
- Maintain a compliance paper trail: minutes, insurance opinions, legal memos.
- If penalties are imposed, appeal on factor-analysis grounds. Agencies must justify penalties with evidence.
Attorney’s Fees Are Closely Scrutinized
- If fees are awarded against you, demand Rowe findings (hours, rates, factors).
- Keep detailed settlement records; offers of settlement can reduce or eliminate fee exposure.
- Argue for fee reduction if the tenant’s success was limited (nominal damages only).
- Proactively negotiate fee caps in settlement agreements to avoid runaway fee awards.
Training Orders Are Becoming Common
- Don’t wait for an order: train boards, staff, and managers annually on FHA and local codes.
- Keep a training log showing who attended and when; this can be evidence of good faith if charged later.
- Incorporate reasonable accommodation/modification procedures into management handbooks.
- Use third-party trainers (fair housing attorneys or compliance specialists) to strengthen credibility.
Takeaway for Landlords
This case illustrates the fine line between reasonable and unreasonable conditions under the FHA.
- Reasonable: modest deposits, restoration requirements, documented insurance tied to actual risk.
- Unreasonable: arbitrary or excessive requirements without evidentiary support.
The best protection is to:
- Document your reasoning.
- Consult legal counsel before imposing unusual conditions.
- Audit and update existing agreements.
- Educate boards and managers through regular fair housing training.
Summary
This case underscores that landlords and associations must walk a fine line when approving modifications. Modest, well-documented conditions may pass muster, but arbitrary or excessive requirements can be deemed discriminatory—even if imposed in good faith or on advice of counsel.
The appellate court’s decision to uphold the Fair Housing Board’s liability findings while quashing the attorney’s fee award highlights two realities: boards may protect tenant rights aggressively, and courts demand precision in how penalties and fees are justified.
For landlords, the lesson is clear: document your reasoning, tailor conditions narrowly, seek legal advice early, and train boards and staff regularly. Reasonableness, transparency, and compliance are the best shields against costly fair housing disputes.
Practical Checklist for Landlords Handling Modification Requests
When a tenant or unit owner requests a disability-related modification, landlords and associations should follow a structured process to stay compliant with the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and avoid liability.
1. Receive & Document the Request
- Require all modification requests to be submitted in writing.
- Note the date received and keep a copy in the tenant’s file.
- Clarify whether it is a reasonable accommodation (policy change) or reasonable modification (physical change).
2. Evaluate the Modification
- Confirm whether the requested change is necessary because of a disability.
- Identify whether the modification involves common areas or inside the unit.
- Determine potential impacts on safety, insurance, or other residents’ rights
3. Consult Governing Documents & Laws
- Review condominium/HOA declarations and bylaws (if applicable).
- Check Florida Statutes, e.g. F.S. ch. 718 (Condominiums) or F.S. ch. 83, pt. 2 (Residential Landlord-Tenant Act).
- Ensure conditions align with FHA requirements and local fair housing ordinances.
4. Impose Only Reasonable Conditions
Conditions must be necessary, tailored, and supported by evidence. Acceptable conditions may include:
- Proof of proper permits and contractor licensing.
- Agreement to restore common areas after removal.
- Indemnification for damages caused by the modification.
- Insurance coverage that is reasonable and consistent with actual risks.
Avoid:
- Arbitrary insurance amounts.
- Excessive deposits or fees.
- Conditions unrelated to the modification itself.
5. Engage in an Interactive Process
- If objections are raised, revisit and discuss alternatives with the tenant.
- Be willing to negotiate solutions (e.g., lower insurance coverage, different contractors).
- Document all communications to show good-faith engagement.
6. Approve or Deny in Writing
- Provide a written decision within a reasonable timeframe.
- If approved, state conditions clearly and tie them to evidence (e.g., insurance certificate requirements).
- If denied, explain the specific legal or safety basis for denial.
7. Follow Up After Installation
- Inspect the modification to ensure compliance with approval conditions.
- Keep insurance certificates or restoration agreements in the tenant’s file.
- Monitor but avoid unnecessary enforcement unless the tenant violates clear conditions.
8. Train & Review
- Provide annual fair housing training for boards, managers, and staff.
- Review prior agreements to ensure outdated conditions aren’t being enforced.
- Update policies every few years for compliance with FHA case law and local ordinances.