The recent decision in Park Crossing Homeowners Association v. Suarez, Case Nos. 4D2023-3116 and 4D2024-0170 (Fla. 4th DCA Apr. 30, 2025), sheds light on the legal tensions between community enforcement rights and the federal and state protections afforded to persons with disabilities under the Fair Housing Act (FHA). At the center of the case was an autistic adult resident whose behavior sparked years of neighborhood tension and litigation, culminating in a detailed court opinion balancing disability rights, HOA enforcement powers, and equitable remedies. This case serves as an important benchmark not only for HOAs, but for landlords and property managers who are likewise bound by the FHA.
Case Background: Years of Neighborhood Tension
Gabriel Suarez, a severely autistic adult, lived in a townhome owned by his mother in the Park Crossing HOA. Over the years, neighbors complained of loud noises, property damage, and disturbances stemming from Gabriel’s behavior. Despite attempts to accommodate Gabriel’s condition, including enrollment in adult day programs and in-home support, his behaviors—such as loud vocalizations and incidents of opening neighbors’ mailboxes—persisted. The HOA sent multiple notices and ultimately filed suit for injunctive relief under Chapter 720, Florida Statutes, citing violations of governing documents that prohibit disturbing noises and interference with other residents’ peaceful enjoyment.
In response, the Suarez family filed counterclaims under the Fair Housing Act, arguing the HOA had effectively denied Gabriel housing and failed to offer reasonable accommodations. The trial court initially sided with the HOA, granting a directed verdict on the FHA claim. But later, the court reversed itself and granted a new trial, finding that a pre-suit mediation letter threatening Gabriel’s “permanent removal” could constitute a threat of eviction sufficient to trigger FHA protection.
The Court’s Decision: 4 Key Rulings Explained
The appellate court reversed the trial court’s order for a new trial, reinstating the directed verdict for the HOA. The key findings of the court included:
- No Realistic Threat of Eviction: The HOA’s mediation demand, though aggressive in tone, did not rise to the level of an actual, realistic, or imminent threat of eviction required under 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(1) of the FHA. Because the HOA is not a landlord and had no legal mechanism to remove Gabriel through expedited eviction proceedings, the claim lacked merit.
- No Constructive Eviction: The court reaffirmed that post-acquisition discrimination may violate the FHA, but only if it renders the dwelling unavailable through harassment, denial of services, or realistic threats of forced removal. Here, the Suarez family remained in their home, and there was no credible evidence they faced a genuine danger of losing it.
- Valid Injunctive Relief: The HOA successfully obtained a narrowly tailored injunction that prohibited excessive noise (defined by city ordinance decibel levels) and interference with neighbors’ mail. The court upheld the injunction, rejecting the argument that it violated the FHA or was overly broad.
- No FHA Liability for Individual Board Members: The court clarified that FHA liability does not automatically extend to board members absent direct discriminatory conduct. Voting to initiate legal action or receiving neighbor complaints does not constitute a personal FHA violation.
5 Critical FHA Lessons for Landlords
Although this case arose in the HOA context, landlords and property managers—who operate under direct landlord-tenant relationships—should treat this ruling as a cautionary framework for compliance with FHA disability protections. Here are practical guidelines:
Educational Guidelines for Landlords
- Avoid Threats of Eviction Based on Disability
- Do not issue notices or warnings that imply or threaten eviction because of a tenant’s disability-related behavior when the behavior can be mitigated by reasonable accommodation.
- Even indirect threats (e.g., “We will take legal action if this isn’t resolved”) may trigger FHA scrutiny if connected to the tenant’s disability.
- Document and Consider All Reasonable Accommodation Requests
- The Suarez court emphasized that the plaintiffs failed to propose or document reasonable accommodations. As a landlord, you should:
- Encourage tenants to make requests in writing.
- Engage in the interactive process to evaluate feasible accommodations.
- Maintain detailed records of all discussions and decisions.
- Balance Community Impact with Legal Duty to Accommodate
- Just like HOAs, landlords must balance tenant rights with neighboring tenants’ right to quiet enjoyment.
- Accommodations that impose an undue financial or administrative burden or fundamentally alter the nature of housing services are not required—but you must demonstrate this with evidence.
- Avoid Discriminatory Enforcement of Lease or Community Rules
- Consistently enforce lease terms without targeting behavior that stems from a known disability.
- Ensure that rule enforcement does not result in disparate impact on disabled tenants unless justified by legitimate safety or operational concerns.
- Use Specific Standards When Managing Behavioral Complaints
- In this case, the HOA used objective decibel thresholds to define prohibited noise levels. Landlords should similarly use:
- Local ordinances.
- Lease terms.
- Third-party inspections or expert input to assess whether behavior violates rules in a neutral, enforceable way.
- In this case, the HOA used objective decibel thresholds to define prohibited noise levels. Landlords should similarly use:
- Do Not Delegate Liability
- Property managers and landlords cannot shield themselves from liability by claiming that enforcement was initiated by another tenant or employee. The FHA imposes liability on any housing provider who engages in, facilitates, or fails to stop discriminatory practices.
Compliance Without Compromise
Park Crossing HOA v. Suarez is a notable decision affirming that while community enforcement actions are legitimate, they must be balanced carefully against federal disability protections under the FHA. For landlords, this ruling reinforces the need to avoid speculative threats, accommodate disabilities where reasonable, and document every step of the decision-making process. Legal compliance doesn’t require landlords to tolerate unsafe or unmanageable behavior—but it does require measured, lawful, and good-faith responses when a tenant’s disability is involved.