Court Opinion

ID: 9900363
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-18 22:11:41.142459+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:04.888204
License: Public Domain

46                    September 13, 2023               No. 456

           IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE
                   STATE OF OREGON

                  Donald RICARD,
                    an individual,
          and Reuben Garcia, an individual,
                Plaintiffs-Appellants,
                           v.
       KLAMATH FALLS FOREST ESTATES
 HOMEOWNERS’ ASSOCIATION, INC., (“KFFEHOA”),
        an Oregon mutual benefit corporation;
    James Vaughan; Michelle Vaughan; Eric Goritz;
 Sam Marquez; and Cynthia Wilson, as individuals and
   as members of the KFFEHOA Board of Directors,
              Defendants-Respondents.
           Klamath County Circuit Court
                18CV25995; A176668

     Alycia E. Kersey, Judge.
     Submitted January 6, 2023.
     Michael W. Franell filed the briefs for appellants.
  Elizabeth W. Armitage, Thomas F. Armosino, and
Frohnmayer, Deatherage, Jamison, Moore, Armosino &
McGovern, P. C. filed the brief for respondents Eric Goritz
and James Vaughan.
   Michael D. Montag and Vial Fotheringham LLP filed
the brief for respondents Klamath Falls Forest Estates
Homeowners’ Association, Inc., James Vaughan, Michelle
Vaughan, Eric Goritz, Sam Marquez, and Cynthia Wilson.
  Before Shorr, Presiding Judge, and Mooney, Judge, and
Pagán, Judge.
     SHORR, P. J.
   Judgment on IIED claim as to defendants James
Vaughan, Eric Goritz, and Sam Marquez in their individual
capacities reversed and remanded; otherwise affirmed.
Cite as 328 Or App 46 (2023)   47
48            Ricard v. Klamath Falls Forest Estates HOA

        SHORR, P. J.
         This case originated when plaintiffs, Donald Ricard
and Reuben Garcia, filed a complaint against their home-
owners’ association, the Klamath Falls Forest Estates
Homeowners’ Association (HOA), as well as board mem-
bers both in their individual capacities and as members of
the HOA Board of Directors. Plaintiffs alleged that under
ORS 659A.421(2)(c) defendants discriminated against them
and also caused intentional infliction of emotional distress
(IIED). Specifically, plaintiffs alleged that defendants dis-
criminated against them due to their disabilities by with-
holding or revoking keyed access to a community well, and
that defendants’ conduct in withholding well access, as well
as other alleged incidents, constituted IIED. Defendants
moved for summary judgment on plaintiffs’ claims, and
the trial court granted the motion and dismissed plaintiffs’
claims in their entirety. Plaintiffs now appeal that ruling.
We affirm in part and reverse in part.
         As we explain below, we affirm the trial court’s
grant of summary judgment on the statutory discrimina-
tion claim because plaintiffs presented no disputed issues
of fact that they were discriminated against based on their
source of income as required to prove plaintiffs’ claim under
ORS 659A.421(2)(c). We reverse, however, on the trial court’s
grant of summary judgment to certain individual defen-
dants on plaintiffs’ IIED claim because those individual
defendants did not contest that issue before the trial court
in their summary judgment motion.
         We review a trial court’s grant of summary judg-
ment to determine whether there is no genuine issue of
material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment
as a matter of law. ORCP 47 C. That standard is satisfied if,
viewing the record and all reasonable inferences that may
be drawn from it in favor of the nonmoving party—here,
plaintiffs—“no objectively reasonable juror could return a
verdict for [plaintiffs] on the matter that is the subject of
the motion for summary judgment.” Id.; Robinson v. Lamb’s
Wilsonville Thriftway, 332 Or 453, 455, 31 P3d 421 (2001).
        Before proceeding, we cabin our discussion and the
issues on appeal, because plaintiffs do not assign error to
Cite as 328 Or App 46 (2023)                                 49

every aspect of the trial court’s summary judgment ruling.
First, plaintiffs raise no argument that the trial court erred
in granting summary judgment to defendants on plaintiffs’
claim for injunctive relief, and thus that aspect of the court’s
ruling is affirmed. Likewise, plaintiffs raise no argument
that the trial court erred in dismissing plaintiffs’ claims
against defendant board members Michelle Vaughan and
Cynthia Wilson as individuals for failure of service pur-
suant to the court’s inherent authority under ORCP 54
B(3). That aspect of the court’s ruling, which occurred at
the same time as its summary judgment rulings, is like-
wise affirmed. Plaintiffs only raise arguments regarding
the court’s grant of summary judgment to the remaining
defendants—HOA, all five board members in their capaci-
ties as officers and directors, and Eric Goritz, Sam Marquez,
and James Vaughan as individuals—on plaintiffs’ first and
second claims of relief for discrimination and IIED. Thus,
we only consider the court’s rulings as to those defendants
and claims.
         We begin with plaintiffs’ discrimination claim.
Plaintiffs alleged in their operative complaint that, although
defendants had told plaintiffs that they were not eligible for
“water keys” under the 2013 HOA bylaws, the true reason
that plaintiffs had been denied keys was because defen-
dants had animus for plaintiffs due to their disabilities.
In their complaint, plaintiffs alleged discrimination under
ORS 659A.421. Defendants moved for summary judgment
on that claim on two bases: (1) that ORS 659A.421 does
not prohibit discrimination based on disability and (2) that
plaintiffs were not entitled to water keys under the valid
and enforceable 2013 HOA bylaws, which limited access to
“legal residents with legal residences and legal addresses.”
In defendants’ view, that provision limited water keys to
residents with county-permitted dwellings and septic sys-
tems. Plaintiffs filed a memorandum in opposition to sum-
mary judgment, which contended that the 2013 bylaws were
not validly adopted, and that plaintiffs were entitled to
water keys under the last validly adopted HOA bylaws. The
memorandum also contended, for the first time, that they
were actually asserting a claim for discrimination based on
plaintiffs’ source of income as disability benefits under ORS
50                  Ricard v. Klamath Falls Forest Estates HOA

659A.421.1 In reply, defendants argued that plaintiffs had
not presented evidence of discrimination based on source
of income. The trial court granted defendants’ motion, con-
cluding that, even accepting plaintiffs’ recharacterization
of the claim as a “source of income” discrimination claim,
“[n]either plaintiff produced any evidence that defendants’
actions were based on discrimination of plaintiff[s’] sources
of income.”
         On appeal, plaintiffs contend that the trial court
erred in that ruling. Specifically, they repeat their argu-
ments about the validity of the 2013 bylaws, and also argue
that plaintiffs created a sufficient record to avoid summary
judgment on their source-of-income discrimination claim.
For our purposes, we need not decide the validity of the 2013
bylaws, or whether some earlier version of the bylaws control.
That is because, even assuming without deciding that the
2013 bylaws limiting water keys to “legal residents with legal
residences and legal addresses” are unenforceable, plaintiffs
failed to present sufficient evidence to defeat summary judg-
ment on their source-of-income discrimination claim.
         We briefly summarize the summary judgment
record as to plaintiffs’ discrimination claim, beginning with
plaintiff Garcia. Garcia owns two lots within the HOA. One
lot has a home on the property, although it does not have
an occupancy permit, while the other lot contains no struc-
tures. Garcia lives in a recreational vehicle on the empty lot.
Garcia had keyed access to the community well for about
three years. In January 2018, HOA notified him that he
would need to return his key because he did “not meet the
proper requirements to qualify as a valid address.” However,
Garcia testified that the board “made it very clear” that he
could not have a water key “because of how my disability, they
have been targeting me.” Garcia receives Social Security
Disability benefits. However, there is no direct evidence in
the record, nor any reasonable inferences from the record,
     1
       Plaintiffs also argued, for the first time, that they had “pled facts from
which a trier of fact could find the Defendants operated in violation of 42 USC
§ 3604(f)(2),” which they also alternatively listed as 42 USC § 3404 in other areas
of their memorandum. The trial court rejected that argument, as plaintiffs had
not raised a violation of federal law in their complaint or at any earlier point of
the litigation. Plaintiffs do not raise any arguments under federal law on appeal.
Cite as 328 Or App 46 (2023)                                                  51

that defendants knew or believed that Garcia received dis-
ability income, and Marquez testified that he did not know
where Garcia “gets his money.”2 Garcia also testified regard-
ing two incidents that he contended supported his discrimi-
nation claim: (1) an incident in April 2018 by board member
defendants, Marquez and James Vaughan, as well as other
individuals, during which Vaughan made fun of Garcia for
“having a cane” and called Garcia “crippled” and “a gimp
fuck” and Marquez told Garcia that he did not “deserve a
key you, fucking gimp fuck”; and (2) an incident in June 2018
in which a man named Dennis Gibbs—who is not a board
member or a defendant in this case—assaulted Garcia and
accused him of “faking [his] disability.”
         Plaintiff Ricard owns one lot within the HOA that
contains some unpermitted structures but no house and
no septic system. He lives in a “fifth wheel” on that prop-
erty. In December 2017, in response to Ricard’s request
for well access, HOA notified Ricard that his request had
been denied because he did not have a “legal residence * * *
with no associated legal physical address established, nor
Klamath County building permits for occupancy.” Ricard
testified that “most * * * if not all” of the board members had
“made comments about [him] being a disabled old contrac-
tor” and that “all” of the board members told him he would
never get a water key because he was a “gimp old fuck.” The
summary judgment record does not indicate Ricard’s source
of income, or whether any of the defendants knew or believed
that Ricard received disability income.
         Finally, plaintiffs submitted Klamath County
records regarding all properties within the HOA that had
received “final approval on residential structures,” “final
approval on installation of septic systems,” and “legal
addresses” as support for their argument that “[d]efendants
treated other similarly situated individuals differently” by
granting water keys to board members and other residents
who were not “legal residents with legal residences and legal
addresses.” Plaintiffs contended that the records provided
evidence that “[n]one of the current Board members” had
    2
      Plaintiffs contend that Garcia “shared with Sam Marquez that he was
receiving social security disability.” However, that contention was not alleged in
the complaint and is not supported by the summary judgment record.
52                   Ricard v. Klamath Falls Forest Estates HOA

“final approval” or “final occupancy” on their residences,
and that in fact only five properties in the entire subdivision
were “completed on septic and building.”
        As noted, the court granted summary judgment
to defendants, concluding that, even accepting plaintiffs’
recharacterization of the claim as a “source of income” dis-
crimination claim, the record did not contain evidence of
Ricard’s source of income at all, and
     “[n]either plaintiff produced any evidence that defendants’
     actions were based on discrimination of plaintiff[s’] sources
     of income. Defendant Marquez stated in his deposition that
     he did not know the source of income for Plaintiff Garcia.
     No evidence in the record supports an inference that any of
     defendants’ alleged actions (kicking a cane, yelling, throw-
     ing a chair, or denying the water key) were based on plain-
     tiffs’ sources of income.”
           Pursuant to ORS 659A.421(2),
        “[a] person may not, because of the race, color, religion,
     sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin,
     marital status, familial status or source of income of any
     person:
        “* * * * *
         “(c) Make any distinction, discrimination or restric-
     tion against a purchaser in the price, terms, conditions or
     privileges relating to the sale, rental, lease or occupancy of
     real property or in the furnishing of any facilities or ser-
     vices in connection therewith.”
In other words, a person may not discriminate against a
purchaser of real property because of the purchaser’s source
of income. That includes discrimination in the privileges of
occupancy or furnishing of facilities or services, and access
to the HOA’s community well is undoubtedly a privilege of
occupancy or a furnished facility or service under the stat-
ute. Further, pursuant to ORS 659A.421(1)(d),
        “(A) ‘Source of income’ includes federal rent subsidy
     payments under 42 USC 1437f and any other local, state or
     federal housing assistance.
Cite as 328 Or App 46 (2023)                                                     53

       “(B) ‘Source of income’ does not include income derived
    from a specific occupation or income derived in an illegal
    manner.”
A plaintiff to a discrimination claim must show either
direct evidence of discriminatory intent or at least indirect
evidence from which a reasonable factfinder could infer dis-
criminatory intent, such as evidence that other similarly sit-
uated individuals who were not in the protected class were
treated more favorably. See Miller v. Racing Commission,
298 Or App 70, 90, 445 P3d 371 (2019) (discussing “dispa-
rate treatment” discrimination claims); Groshong v. Mutual
of Enumclaw Ins. Co., 143 Or App 450, 457, 923 P2d 1280
(1996), aff’d, 329 Or 303, 985 P2d 1284 (1999) (same).3
          Assuming without deciding that a “source of
income” discrimination claim under ORS 659A.421(2) may
rely on discrimination because of a plaintiff’s receipt of dis-
ability benefits, we agree with the trial court that plaintiffs
did not present any evidence that would permit the infer-
ence that defendants withheld water keys from plaintiffs
because of plaintiffs’ disability benefit income. As to Garcia,
plaintiffs present no direct evidence of discrimination
against Garcia based on his source of income, despite plain-
tiffs’ allegations that Garcia was denied a well key due to
his disability. However, a claim of discrimination based on
disability involves a different statute that was not raised in
plaintiffs’ complaint or on summary judgment.4 Therefore,
Garcia needed to present some indirect evidence of source-
of-income discrimination.
          But the record does not support a reasonable infer-
ence of source-of-income discrimination against Garcia.
First, even viewing the record and all reasonable inferences
in favor of plaintiffs, as we must, it is not reasonable to infer
that a defendant who discriminates against persons based
    3
       Because of the limited nature of defendants’ summary judgment motion
and the trial court’s ruling on plaintiffs’ discrimination claim, we need not deter-
mine the precise elements of a prima facie source-of-income discrimination claim
under ORS 659A.421.
    4
       See ORS 659A.145(2)(c) (providing that a person “may not discriminate
because of a disability of a purchaser” by “[m]aking any distinction or restriction
against a purchaser in the price, terms, conditions or privileges relating to the
sale, rental, lease or occupancy of real property or the furnishing of any facilities
or services in connection with the real property”).
54                 Ricard v. Klamath Falls Forest Estates HOA

on their disability by denying them a property privilege
such as a water key and then assaulting or mocking them
has discriminated against them because of their source of
income.
         Additionally, there is no evidence in the record that
defendants knew or believed that Garcia received disability
income. The only incident that could potentially infer some
sort of animus based on Garcia’s source of income, comments
by Dennis Gibbs that Garcia was “faking his disability,”
occurred after Garcia was denied a water key and cannot
be attributed to any of the defendants. Gibbs is not a board
member or defendant in this case.5 Similarly, we cannot
infer source-of-income discrimination from plaintiffs’ evi-
dence that other residents and board members who were not
“legal residents with legal residences and legal addresses”
were granted water keys, because plaintiffs failed to create
a sufficient record to support the inference that those differ-
ences in treatment were based on source of income.
          Finally, as to plaintiff Ricard, plaintiffs failed to
create any record regarding Ricard’s source of income, so
the contention that defendants discriminated against him
because of his disability income is completely unsupported
by the record. Plaintiffs’ contentions to the contrary are
unsubstantiated. As a result, the trial court did not err in
granting defendants’ summary judgment motion on plain-
tiffs’ discrimination claim.
         We turn to plaintiffs’ second claim for relief for
IIED and reach a different conclusion. Plaintiffs con-
tended that defendants intentionally subjected plaintiffs to
extreme emotional distress when defendants denied plain-
tiffs access to the community well for discriminatory rea-
sons. Plaintiffs also alleged that the individual defendants
intentionally subjected plaintiffs to extreme emotional dis-
tress when they subjected plaintiffs to the assaults and
insults described in plaintiffs’ discrimination claim, as well
as when they engaged in several additional acts, including
defendants Marquez and James Vaughan telling Ricard that
    5
      Plaintiffs contend on appeal that Goritz filed a police report that also
accused Garcia of faking his disability. However, that claim was not alleged in
plaintiffs’ complaint, and is not supported by the summary judgment record.
Cite as 328 Or App 46 (2023)                                55

he “better watch his back”; James Vaughan filing a petition
for a stalking order against Garcia that was dismissed by
the court; and defendant Marquez filing a “falsified assault
charge” against Garcia. Plaintiffs contended that all of the
above actions were done with the intent of causing plaintiffs
severe emotional distress and did cause plaintiffs severe
emotional distress.
         Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the
IIED claim argued only that the “HOA Defendants,” mean-
ing the HOA and the board member defendants in their
capacities as officers and directors of the HOA, were enti-
tled to summary judgment in their favor, because the only
conduct attributable to the HOA or its officers and directors
the denial of water keys, was done in accordance with the
valid 2013 bylaws, and that evidence was legally insufficient
to support an IIED claim. Although defendants Marquez,
James Vaughan, and Goritz joined and adopted that motion
“in their individual capacit[ies],” they did not raise any sep-
arate argument that they were entitled to summary judg-
ment as to the alleged non-HOA conduct as well. In other
words, no defendant developed any legal argument that
the individual defendants were not directly liable for IIED
for their individual conduct. Further, no defendant raised
a factual issue as to plaintiffs’ IIED claims related to the
individual defendants’ conduct. As noted, the only argument
was that withholding a water key, which was alleged to be
the only conduct done by defendants in their HOA capacity,
could not support an IIED claim. In opposing the motion,
plaintiffs seemed to concede that the HOA defendants could
not be liable for IIED, but argued that “summary judgment
is absolutely inappropriate for [the individual defendants’]
individual liability.”
         Despite defendants’ limited summary judgment
argument, the trial court concluded that, “[i]n the record
before the court, plaintiffs have failed to allege any evidence
that defendants’ acts caused them severe mental or emo-
tional distress.” In addition, the court ruled that the denial
of a water key “is not an extraordinary transgression of the
bounds of socially tolerable conduct and does not exceed
any reasonable limit of social toleration.” Finally, the court
concluded:
56                Ricard v. Klamath Falls Forest Estates HOA

         “Other allegations of socially intolerable conduct by indi-
     vidual defendants James Vaughan, Marquez, and Goritz
     are not supported by the facts in the record. For instance,
     there is no evidence in the record that any of the reports
     made by these individuals to the Klamath County Sheriff’s
     Office were in fact falsely made. The most egregious act
     alleged—knocking Mr. Garcia’s canes out from underneath
     him, is attributable to Mr. Gibbs, who is not a party to this
     case.”
On those grounds, the trial court granted the motion.
         On appeal, plaintiffs contend that the trial court
erred in dismissing their IIED claim as to defendants
James Vaughan, Goritz, and Marquez for their individual
conduct. We agree.6 Defendants’ summary judgment motion
only raised arguments pertaining to the HOA defendants—
the HOA and its officers and directors in their capacities as
HOA representatives and officers. It did not raise any argu-
ment for summary judgment as to the individual defendants.
Plaintiffs only had a burden to produce evidence on the mat-
ters raised in defendants’ motion—they were not required
to create a record on their mental or emotional distress,
and they were not required to create a record on the alle-
gations against the individual defendants more generally.
See ORCP 47 C. Under ORCP 47, a court is not empowered
to grant summary judgment on an issue that is not raised
by the moving party’s motion. Eklof v. Steward, 360 Or 717,
730, 385 P3d 1074 (2016); Two Two v. Fujitec America, Inc.,
355 Or 319, 325-26, 325 P3d 707 (2014); Woodroffe v. State
of Oregon, 292 Or App 21, 27, 422 P3d 381 (2018). Relatedly,
we cannot affirm a grant of summary judgment on a ground
not raised by the motion, because “the opposing party had
no reason to adduce evidence on an issue that was not raised
in the summary judgment motion.” Eklof, 360 Or at 736. For
those reasons, the trial court erred in dismissing plaintiffs’
IIED claim as to the individual defendants.
         Judgment on IIED claim as to defendants James
Vaughan, Eric Goritz, and Sam Marquez in their individual
capacities reversed and remanded; otherwise affirmed.

    6
      Plaintiffs no longer pursue a claim against the HOA for IIED. We express
no opinion on that claim.