Opinion ID: 1111130
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the community's counterclaim

Text: 50. In its counterclaim the Community alleged again that the Neighbors' actions violated the FHA, and it requested relief in the form of a permanent injunction against the Neighbors to prevent them from engaging in conduct which denies persons with disabilities the equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. The Community also requested an award of attorney's fees pursuant to Section 3613(c)(2) of the FHA which provides in relevant part that the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party ... a reasonable attorney's fee and costs. Concluding that there had been no violation of the FHA, the trial court dismissed the counterclaim. 51. On appeal, the Community requests an award of appellate attorney's fees, as well as fees incurred at the trial court level. Having considered these requests in light of the Neighbors' nondiscriminatory justification for attempting to enforce the covenant and the trial court's findings regarding the group home's impact on the neighborhood, we decline to award attorney's fees to the Community. Nor do we think a permanent injunction against the Neighbors is appropriate here. Injunctions are harsh and drastic remedies which should issue only in extreme cases of pressing necessity and only where there is no adequate and complete remedy at law. Padilla v. Lawrence, 101 N.M. 556, 562, 685 P.2d 964, 970 (Ct. App.), cert. denied, 101 N.M. 419, 683 P.2d 1341 (1984). The Community has made no showing that the Neighbors plan future conduct that would violate the Community's rights under the FHA, nor should we assume they will not comply with this opinion. Therefore, because we conclude that the Community is not entitled to the relief requested in its counterclaim, we affirm the trial court's dismissal of that counterclaim.