Opinion ID: 1316068
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Standing Under the Fair Housing Acts

Text: ¶ 23 The trial court determined that Sparks lacks standing to sue under the FFHA or the UFHA. Malibu contends that we should uphold the trial court on this issue because the definition of familial status under the acts does not include Sparks. According to Malibu's argument, familial status refers to a child domiciled with a parent or guardian, and Sparks is not the parent or guardian of her adult daughter's child. See 42 U.S.C.A. § 3602(k) (1994); Utah Code Ann. § 57-21-2(14) (1994). To determine standing, we look to those provisions in the acts describing those who may bring suit. ¶ 24 Both the FFHA and the UFHA grant standing to aggrieved person[s]. 42 U.S.C.A. § 3613(a)(1)(A) (1994); Utah Code Ann. § 57-21-12(1) (Supp.1999). The FFHA defines aggrieved person to include any person who  (1) claims to have been injured by a discriminatory housing practice; or (2) believes that such person will be injured by a discriminatory housing practice that is about to occur. 42 U.S.C.A. § 3602(i) (1994). Similarly, the UFHA defines the term to include any person who: (a) claims to have been injured by a discriminatory housing practice; or (b) believes that he will be injured by a discriminatory housing practice that is about to occur. Utah Code Ann. § 57-21-2(1) (Supp.1999). ¶ 25 In the instant case, Sparks asserts that she has been, or will be, injured by Malibu's discriminatory practices based on familial status because, as she alleges, Malibu's seven-day notice mandated either the removal of her grandson or the eviction of Sparks, her two daughters, and her grandson. This alleged injury is sufficient to make Sparks an aggrieved person under the FFHA. See Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363, 372, 102 S.Ct. 1114, 71 L.Ed.2d 214 (1982); Gladstone Realtors v. Village of Bellwood, 441 U.S. 91, 103 n. 9, 99 S.Ct. 1601, 60 L.Ed.2d 66 (1979); Mountain Side Mobile Estates v. Secretary of HUD, 56 F.3d 1243, 1249 (10th Cir.1995). We hold that such alleged injury is also sufficient to qualify Sparks as an aggrieved person under the UFHA. Thus, Sparks has standing to raise a defense or counterclaim under the FFHA and the UFHA. We next consider whether Sparks' contentions under those acts withstand summary judgment.