### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

ROY A. DANF ORTH , DIANE MARIE DANFORTH,

and RYAN DANFORTH
, Appellant s ,

v.

JAMAICA BAY EA ST MANAGEMENT CO., INC.
, a Florida corporation d/b/a PARADISE VILLAGE
, Appellee.

No. 4D 19

- 1440

[ S e ptember 30, 2020 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Nicholas Richard Lopane , Judge; L.T. Case No.

CAC E1600 8814

.

Matthew W. Dietz of Disability Independence Group, Inc., Miami, for appellants.

Jeffrey M

. Hearne of Lega l Services of Greater Miami, Inc., Miami, Michelle Trunkett of Florida Rural Legal Services, Inc., Fort Myers, Katherine Hanson of Disability Rights Florida, Tallahassee, and Angel Eason of Legal Services of North Florida, Tallahassee, for A mic us Cur i a e The Ho u sing Umbrella Group of Florida Legal Services, Inc.

Paul B. Ranis and Caran Rothchild of Greenberg Traurig, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

C URLEY
, G. J OSEPH
, Associate Judge.

Appellant s Roy, Diane, and Ryan Danforth ( collective ly, “ the

Dan fort h s ”) appeal from t he trial court’s final order granting summary judgment as to Counts I and II of the ir counterclaim in favor of Jamaica Bay East Management Co., Inc. (“Jamaica Bay”). We reverse and remand

for furt her proceedings.

Facts2 Roy and Dia ne Danforth lived in a resi dential manufact u red home park called Paradise Village, owned and operated by Jamaica Bay East Management Co., Inc

. Their son, Ryan Danforth (“Ryan”) , 27 years old,

lived with them. Ryan was dia gnosed with a utism s p e ctrum d i sorder in

2014. The Danforth s prof fered that Ryan’ s psychological evaluation

indicates that “ [a] utistic individuals often do not experience their emotions until they are already erupting . . . [where] emotions such as anger, sadness and even joy a r e not exp erienced until they are

escalated.”

On October 9, 2015, Ryan was in volved in an incident with the management office. Ryan parked his car along a fence on the north side of the office, clubhouse, and pool area. A note left on Rya n’s car

inform e d him tha t if his car was not moved due to t ree trimming

, it would be towed at his expense. Ryan moved the car to another spot but along the same row, so a tow truck came to remove the car. Ryan could not understand why the car was being tow ed after he h ad moved the car as instructed by the note. Seeking an expl a nation

, he banged loudly on the office door, which was locked for the lunch hour, swore, and allegedly threatened the people inside the office. Both Ryan and the people in the

office called the police.

On October 21, 2015, the Dan forth s received a l ease t er m ination

n otice, notifying them that their lease was terminated because Ryan’s

incident resulted in a violation of the lease

. At this time

, Jamaica Bay

claimed not to know which of the D anf or th sons was involved in the

incident.

The Danforth s retained an atto r ney who spoke with Jamaica Bay’s attorney on October 29 , 2015, to discuss possibilities of resolving the

matter. The ir discussion included potential removal of Ryan Danforth

and reim bu rsement for legal fees and costs. They also discussed that i t was standard p r actice for Jamaica Bay , and in its policies and procedures, to file a written stipulated settlement agreement with the

court. Jamaica Bay proposed to file, but not se rve, a co mp laint for eviction and thereafter file the settlement stipula tion with the co u rt.
Althou gh the Danforth s ’ attorney did not raise any issue with these methods, he also did not agree to them.

On October 30, 2015, Jamaica Bay’s attorney sent a draft stip ul ation

of settlement

, which included the permanent removal of Ryan Danfort h.

Also on Octo b er 30, the Danforth s delivered a letter to Jamaica Bay’s
attorney which stated that Ryan had been diagnosed with a utis m3 s pectrum d isorder and request ed reasonable a cc ommodations for him to

conti nue living in Paradise Village

.

On November 6, 2015, J amaica Bay’s att o rney sent to the Danforths’
attorney a revised settlement offer which would have allowed Ryan to
stay

, but with automatic and immediate eviction should a ny future violations occur from any Dan forth family member

. The email sen t with

the settlement offer stated th a t the offer would remain open until the end

of the week.

Three days late r, on November 9, 2015, Jamaica Bay filed a c omplaint

for t enant e victi on

. The Danforth s filed an a nswer, a ffirmative d efense

a nd c ounterclaim under the Fair Housing Act

, 42 U.S.C. § 3504

, asserting Count I for intentional disabi lity discrimination and Count II

for refusal to make reasonabl e accommodations for a disability.

Jamaica B ay filed motions for summary judgment on the Danforth s ’

counter claims, believing t h e Danforth s had not sufficiently established

either claim. Following a hearing , the trial court granted summary judgment on C ount I, but deni e d summary judgment on Count II. In a later hearing

, the trial court granted summary judgment on Count II,

fin di ng that the Danforth s failed to prove that they timely and properly

reque sted a reasonable accommodation

.

Analysis

On appeal, the gran t ing o f a motion for summary judgment is

reviewed de novo. Volusia C ty. v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P.

, 760

So. 2d 1 26, 130 (Fla. 2000)

. Summary j udgment is appropriate only where “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving
party is en titled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(c) ; Mac C latchey v. HCA Health Serv

. of Fl a. , In c. , 139 So. 3d 970 (Fla

. 4 th DCA 2014 ). Moreover, we have further explained:

When a defendant moves for summary judgment , the court

is n ot cal led upon to determine whether the plaintiff can actually prove his cause of action. See Publix Super Mkts.,

Inc

. v. Schmidt , 509 So. 2d 977 (Fla. 4 th DCA 1987). Rather,

the court ’ s function is solely to determine whether t he record conclusively sho ws tha t the moving party proved a negative, that is, “ the nonexistence of a gen uine issue of a material fact. ” Besco US A Int ’ l Corp. v. Home Sav. of Am. FSB , 675 So. 2d 687, 688 (Fla. 5 th DCA 1996). If the record reflects even the possibi lity of a materi al iss ue of fact, or if different4 inferences can reasonably be dra wn from the facts, the doubt must be resolved agains t the moving party. Se e id.

Winston Park, Ltd. v. City of Coconut Creek

, 872 So. 2d 415, 418 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (emphas is added)

.

“Th e law is well settled in Florida that a party moving for summary judgment must show conclusively the absence of any gen u i ne issue of

material fact and the cou rt must draw every possible inference in favor of the party against whom a sum mary judgment is sou ght.” Moore v.

Morris

, 475 So. 2d 666, 668 (Fla. 1985)

. If the evidence is conflicting or could permit different reas o n able inferences, it should be submitt ed to the jury as a question of fact. See id.

The learned trial court perce ived no genuine issu e of m aterial fact and granted summary judgment as a matter of law. In this case, questions of

fact as to the reasonab l e ness of the association ’ s actions and

accom modations remain. The Danforth s asked for an accommodation for Ryan

, which w as m et with a provis i on that all family members could be evicted for any violation

. Jamaica Bay assert ed that it was reasonable

for t h e m to evict the entire family because the Danfo rth s re fused to agree that they would be subject to being immediately and summa rily evicted

for any violation in the future. It is uniquely a fact issue to determine whether this proposal offered a reasonabl e accommodation free of

discriminator y animus in these circumstances.

Jamaica Bay also argued it did not know that Ryan s uffe red from a

disab ility until after it acted to evict

, which it asserts prevents any ability

to claim that its actions were moti vate d at the material times by a

discriminator y anim us. The Danforth s countered that Jamaica Bay was provided written notice req uest ing a ccommodatio n on October 30

, 2015, before any potential court eviction

, and that Jamaica Bay responded by offering an u nrea s o nable proposal adverse to all of the Danforths. In

a dditio n to the factual determination of whether a reasonable

accommodat ion was off ered, t he circum stances here also present fact

issues as to whether notice of a disability and a request for

accomm odat i o n w ere given before the adverse actions were taken by Jamaica Bay.

Conclusion

The issues here present questions of fact

, th e inferences fro m which

must be drawn in favor of the Dan fort hs

, a s the counterclaim plain tiffs

,

on Jamaica Bay ’ s motion for summ ar y judgment

. Because material5 questions of fact remain, we reverse the summary final jud gment on Co unts I and II of the Danforth s ’ counterclaim

, and reman d this cause for further proceedings consistent herewith.

Reversed and remand ed

.

G ROSS and K UN TZ

, J J

. , concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion fo r rehearing.