Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): suggests the FHA imposes a duty on a homeowner association or property manager to intervene in a neighbor-to-neighbor dispute. Pursuant to the governing documents, an owner cannot permit an activity to be conducted on their property that will interfere with the rights, comforts or conveniences of other owners. It is also true that the Association has the right to enforce all conditions imposed by the governing documents and the obligation to maintain the common area property, but the documents do not prevent racial harassment by one neighbor against another or require the Association or Property Manager to intervene in a neighbor-to-neighbor dispute. See and c.f Reeves v. Carrollsburg Condominium Unit Owners Ass’n., No. CIV.A. 96-2495RMU, 1997 WL 1877201, at *8 (D.D.C. Dec.18, 1997) (<HOLDING>). The Lawrences erroneously equate an owner’s 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that only deliberate executive conduct gives rise to a familial association violation and explicitly noting that this rule applies to both minor and adult children (B) holding no violation of section 101 in spite of violation of union bylaws because plaintiffs do not allege that members or classes have been discriminated against in their right to vote (C) holding that a violation of the rules of professional conduct may not be used as evidence and citing terry cove north for the proposition that the sole remedy for a violation of the rules of professional conduct was the imposition of disciplinary measures (D) holding fha claim stated against association where bylaws authorized association to stop illegal conduct and expressly made any violation of local or federal law a violation of the associations rules (E) holding that violation of state law was not a per se constitutional violation
Output (English): holding that violation of state law was not a per se constitutional violation