Court Opinion

ID: 9576414
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:24:16.318284+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:07:20.573408
License: Public Domain

DURHAM, Associate Chief Justice,
dissenting:
¶ 39 I respectfully dissent. Plaintiff Kathy Sparks (“Sparks”) has raised genuine issues of material fact regarding whether defendant Malibu Investment Co. (“Malibu”) discriminated against her based upon the protected category of “familial status.” The landlord sent a notice to Sparks that was facially discriminatory, requiring her to remove her grandchild from the mobile home unit they resided in together. The basic principles of federal and Utah fair housing and discrimination law require that in a case with disputed issues of material fact, Sparks be given a chance to prove that a discriminatory act occurred.
¶ 40 This case centers on the meaning and significance of a seven-day notice served by Malibu on Sparks. The seven-day notice states the following:
You are violating Rule 7 # 3 because you have more people living in the home than you are registered with. This rule says that no occupation by more than one family without permittion [sic] from management. You must cure this by removing evry body [sic] except for you & your 2 daughters.
(Emphasis added.)
¶41 Malibu’s evidence in the trial court rested largely on the affidavit and supplemental affidavit of Mark Prigmore (“Prig-more”), the manager of the mobile home park property and Malibu’s agent. Prigmore admits that when he served the seven-day notice, he knew “that the Defendant’s daughter was living with her and I knew that the Defendant’s Daughter [sic] had a baby.” Malibu thus knew of the child’s presence in Sparks’ home when it served a notice that, by its literal terms, required that Sparks remove the child.
¶ 42 Furthermore, Sparks provided sworn testimony in affidavits and in her deposition that she read this notice according to its literal terms. That is, she understood this notice to require her to either remove her grandchild from the house or move. Sparks’ affidavit states, “Plaintiff specifically required that my grandchild who lives in my mobile home leave the park [sic] as a condition of my continued residency in the Park.... The only person residing in the mobile home except for me and my two daughters is my grandchild.”
¶ 43 During Sparks’ deposition, the following colloquy took place:
Q: The notice says that that daughter [the child’s mother] can stay, correct? A: Correct.
Q: So you inferred that because they didn’t say the baby could stay specifically that the baby had to go?
A: Correct.
*1054¶ 44 As to what was communicated after the seven-day notice was served, the record shows crucial inconsistencies. Prigmore’s supplemental affidavit states: “The Park is not attempting to evict Mrs. Sparks because she has more than one family living in her residence. She at one time had other adult [sic], other than her family, living with her when the notices were served.[1] The Park would have gladly entered into an agreement to permit her grandson to reside in her home with her two daughters. Mrs. Sparks took no action to request such permission from the Park.”
¶45 It is unclear what Prigmore’s time-frame is, but since he is discussing serving the notices, it is likely that what he means is that the Park was willing to enter into such an agreement with Sparks after the notice was served. In that case, Prigmore is conceding that Malibu did intend the notice to require the child’s removal. Malibu thus appears to concede that the notice required removal of Sparks’ grandchild and that it understood and intended it to do so.
¶ 46 Prigmore swore to a conversation with Sparks shortly after the notice was served in which he told her that his purpose was not to require the child’s removal, but rather “with respect to the unauthorized persons was to force [Sparks] to remove the numerous other adult persons who have been living with her.” In the Sparks deposition, however, the facts are stated quite differently:
Q: When you received this seven-day notice and you saw that only your two daughters could stay, as you interpreted it, did you go to management and ask them about the baby?
A: I called them on the phone. Like I say, I can’t go in to see them because they’re in the office, I work during the day. By the time I get home from work they’re gone. So I had called him to ask about this. Well of course they’re not there. So I left a message on the answering machine and he never replied, returned my phone call.
¶ 47 Prigmore appears to contradict himself, and support Sparks, when he states in his supplemental affidavit, “Had Mrs. Sparks approached the Park for assistance with more time to comply with the rule violation, the Park would have graciously done everything in its power to help her.” (Emphasis added.) Thus, there appears to be a dispute regarding whether Prigmore ever communicated his subjective intentions to Sparks.
¶48 Malibu, however, contends that the seven-day notice, whatever it says regarding the grandchild, was motivated by the presence of other, unregistered adults in Sparks’ home. Sparks testified in her deposition to the following:
Q: Was there anyone besides the four . people mentioned in the home at the time of the seven-day notice, yourself, your two daughters and your grandchild?
A: That’s it.
¶ 49 When asked about other temporary guests in her home, Sparks testified that her grandson’s father had been the longest temporary guest in her home, staying about two months, and that she had verbally informed “Mark” (Prigmore) about his presence. According to Sparks, Prigmore approved the guest, as long as it was only “temporary”; he did not define temporary. Another “temporary visitor,” who, Sparks testified, probably did not even sleep at her home, was Sparks’ mother. She came for perhaps five or seven days to take care of Sparks’ eight-year-old daughter while Sparks was in the hospital. Sparks did not testify about any other guests or visitors. Malibu’s lawyer did not ask about any other guests by name during Sparks’ deposition. Prigmore did not testify to anything more specific than “unauthorized persons” and “numerous other adult persons.”
¶ 50 Taken in the light most favorable to Sparks, then, the evidence is that Malibu served a notice on her, knowing and intending it to require that she remove her grand*1055child. Furthermore, at the time the notice was served, no other person was living in the home to whom the notice could have referred. When Sparks attempted to contact the Park manager, he failed to return her phone call. Although Malibu may have been willing to waive its demand that Sparks remove the child, it never communicated this willingness to her.2
SPARKS’ SECTION 3604(B) CLAIM
¶ 51 There are two methods a plaintiff may use to establish a disparate treatment discrimination claim under section 3604(b) of the Fair Housing Act: directly, using either direct or circumstantial evidence, or indirectly, utilizing the “inferential burden method” outlined in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973). See Kormoczy v. Secretary, United States Dep’t of Hous. & Urban Dev., 53 F.3d 821, 823-24 (7th Cir.1995). Direct evidence is evidence which can be interpreted as acknowledging the defendant’s discriminatory intent. See id. at 824. “Where direct evidence is used to show that a housing decision was made in violation of the [FHA], the burden shifting analysis is inap-posite.” Id. As the United States Supreme Court stated in a Title VII case, “[WJhether an employment practice involves disparate treatment through explicit facial discrimination does not depend on why the employer discriminates but rather on the explicit terms of the discrimination.” International Union, United Auto., Aerospace & Agrie. Implement Workers of Am. v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 499 U.S. 187, 199, 111 S.Ct. 1196, 113 L.Ed.2d 158 (1991) (emphasis added), quoted in Bangerter v. Orem City Corp., 46 F.3d 1491, 1500-01 (10th Cir.1995). International Union continues, “[T]he absence of a malevolent motive does not convert a facially discriminatory policy into a neutral policy with a discriminatory effect.” Id. “Specifically with regard to housing discrimination, a plaintiff need not prove the malice or discriminatory animus of a defendant to make out a case of intentional discrimination where the defendant expressly treats someone protected by the FHA[ ] in a different manner than others.” Bangerter, 46 F.3d at 1501 (citation omitted).
¶ 52 The seven-day notice says that Sparks “must” cure the alleged violation that gave rise to the notice by “removing evry body [sic] except for you & your 2 daughters.” The notice could not be more clear. The notice constitutes direct or circumstantial evidence from which a jury could infer that Malibu intended to evict Sparks because of the presence of her grandchild. Analogizing to the statutory interpretation context, omissions are significant and should therefore “be taken note of and given effect.” Kennecott Copper Corp. v. Anderson, 30 Utah 2d 102, 514 P.2d 217, 219 (1973). The burden now shifts to Malibu to “prove by a preponderance of the evidence that it would have made the same decision absent the impermissible factor.” Kormoczy, 53 F.3d at 824.3
¶ 53 The majority states that Malibu has asserted “multiple valid, good-faith justifications” for Sparks’ eviction, and absent a showing of pretext, the “alleged discrimination by Malibu in the seven-day notice is immaterial.” This is incorrect for two reasons: first, Sparks has offered convincing evidence of direct discrimination and, second, even if one were using a McDonnell Douglas burden shifting analysis, Sparks has countered Malibu’s “good-faith justifications” with testimony that contradicts their assertions *1056regarding her “numerous” and/or “unregistered” guests. Summary judgment cannot be granted with regard to the seven-day notice because both Malibu’s intent and the underlying violations are disputed.
¶ 54 The majority relies on several admittedly still uncured maintenance violations listed in the seven-day notice as “dispositive” of whether summary judgment was properly granted on Malibu’s eviction claim. In my view, Malibu should be estopped from arguing that the cure period of seven days has run; thus, Sparks is not yet in violation of the notice. Requiring Sparks to cure the maintenance violations before litigating whether the notice constitutes illegal discrimination would place before her a Hobson’s choice of spending her scarce resources to cure the maintenance violations with the possibility that she would have to move anyway if the seven-day notice were found to be nondiscriminatory. Sparks has sworn that she makes approximately $5.80 per hour sewing piecework and that she could not spend the money curing the maintenance violations before she knew the outcome of the lawsuit. If the landlord had not illegally discriminated against her grandchild, Sparks would have been able to cure the maintenance violations. Therefore, the landlord’s illegal action is the reason that she is in violation of the notice.
¶ 55 The majority relies on Crescentwood Village, Inc. v. Johnson, 909 P.2d 1267 (Utah Ct.App.1995), to uphold the landlord’s position that Sparks’ eviction is legal. The instant case, however, is clearly distinguishable from Crescentwood. In Crescentwood, the landlord served a notice similar to the ones served on Sparks, to the effect that future violations of these rules would result in eviction without a further opportunity to cure. See id. at 1268. In Crescentwood, the tenant cured all of the violations, and later committed new violations. See id. Here, Sparks is still on round number one in that she has not had a chance to cure her violations while not also under the threat of having to leave her home because her grandchild cannot stay. Surely, under these circumstances, Sparks should not be bound by the Crescentwood standard. It permits the landlord to both create the circumstances of an illegal eviction and get away with it.
SPARKS’ SECTION 3604(C) CLAIM
¶ 56 I also disagree with the majority’s refusal to consider Sparks’ claims and defenses under sections 3604(c) of the FHA and 57-21-5(2) of the Utah Fair Housing Act (“UFELA”), because Sparks did not raise these claims and defenses below. In Kaiserman Associates, Inc. v. Francis Town, 977 P.2d 462 (Utah 1998), this court explained that while the court ordinarily prefers to decide an appeal based on the arguments presented by the litigants, there are times when it is appropriate to go beyond those arguments. See id. at 464. This court stated, “In our view, an overlooked ... argument should not compel an erroneous result. We should not be forced to ignore the law just because the parties have not raised or pursued obvious arguments.” Id. Unlike Kai-serman, this issue was raised on appeal, and further, the section 3604(c) claim involves exactly the same issues of fact as the section 3604(b) claim. It is widely acknowledged that “[t]he rule that a reviewing court will address only issues in the trial court is not absolute.... [Tjhere are numerous situations in which a reviewing court may reach an issue notwithstanding ... its being presented for the first time on appeal.” 5 Am. Jur.2d Appellate Review § 691 (1995). One area in which it is appropriate to make such an exception is when the matter is of “sufficient public concern.” Id. Certainly, the area of housing discrimination is one of vital concern to the public, and in this narrow circumstance, I would make the exception and consider defendant’s claim and defense.
¶57 Section 3604(c) prohibits the making or publishing of any notice, statement, or advertisement concerning the rental of a dwelling that indicates any preference or limitation based on familial status. See 42 U.S.C. § 3604(c) (1994). Many cases have held or recognized that the test for determining whether a violation has occurred is whether, given the natural interpretation of the words, it would indicate to the ordinary reader or listener, who is neither the most suspicious nor the most insensitive of readers *1057or listeners, a discriminatory preference or limitation. See Jancik v. Department of Hous. & Urban Dev., 44 F.3d 553 (7th Cir. 1995); Housing Opportunities Made Equal, Inc. v. Cincinnati Enquirer, Inc., 943 F.2d 644 (6th Cir.1991); Ragin v. New York Times Co., 923 F.2d 995 (2d Cir.1991); Spann v. Colonial Village, Inc., 899 F.2d 24 (D.C.Cir.1990); United States v. Hunter, 459 F.2d 205 (4th Cir.1972); Wilson v. Glenwood Intermountain Properties, 876 F.Supp. 1231 (D.Utah 1995), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 98 F.3d 590 (10th Cir.1996); Blomgren v. Ogle, 850 F.Supp. 1427 (E.D.Wash.1993). While this standard has most often been used in the context of commercial advertising, it has been used between private individuals as well. See Blomgren, 850 F.Supp. at 1439-41 (apartment complex rules discriminated based on familial status). Additionally, “[s]ection 3604(c) may be violated without a showing of a subjective intent to discriminate.” Llanos v. Estate of Anthony Coehlo, 24 F.Supp.2d 1052, 1057 (E.D.Cal. 1998) (citing Jancik, 44 F.3d at 556). Finally, “the finder of fact may consider the per se unlawful notices as relevant to the issue of Defendants’ intent as to the ... 3604(b) claim[].” Blomgren, 850 F.Supp. at 1441.
¶58 The seven-day notice “indicates [a] preference, limitation, or discrimination based on ... familial status.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(c). No showing of intent on Malibu’s part is necessary for Sparks to prove this claim or defense. This court should remand this issue to the trial court so that a fact-finder may determine whether a reasonable reader in Sparks’ situation would have read the seven-day notice to require the eviction of her grandchild.
LANDLORD-TENANT LAW
¶ 59 Even if a jury did not find that the notice was facially discriminatory or that Sparks proved a claim under sections 3604(b) and/or 3604(c) of the FHA, I would note another issue not raised by Sparks at any time during the course of this action, but which I believe is problematic.
¶ 60 The text of the notice that Sparks received from Malibu does not address whether it is specifically aimed at the removal of her grandchild, or any other complaint, such as excessive numbers of guests, that the landlord might have against her.4 As such, the notice may have constituted a violation of her rights under both the Utah Mobile Home Park Residency Act (the “MHPRA”), Utah Code Ann. §§ 57-16-1 to -15.1 (1994 & Supp. 1999), and the Forcible Entry and Detainer Statute, id. §§ 78-36-1 to -12.6 (1996 & Supp.1999).
¶ 61 First, pursuant to the MHPRA, the landlord may terminate a lease for cause, including failure of a mobile home park resident’s compliance with a mobile home park rule. See id. §§ 57-16-5 to -6 (Supp.1999). An action to terminate a lease for cause must be commenced with a written notice that “shall set forth the cause for the notice.” Id. § 57-16-1(2) (Supp.1999).
¶ 62 The notice given by the landlord arguably did not set forth the cause in a fashion that was capable of being cured. First, if the landlord’s concern was that Sparks had guests living with her who were not family, this notice was too vague and lacked specific information to inform Sparks of how she might remedy the situation. Second, the landlord’s notice could have been aimed at attempting to evict Sparks’ newborn grandson because of her failure to register him. The notion that a failure to register an infant could be a lease violation is so extraordinary that a landlord should be required to give a clearly worded notice that it regards this as a lease violation. Finally, the landlord might also have been claiming that Sparks’ grandson was not her family member. Again, given that the infant’s mother was a registered resident, such an extraordinary notion must necessarily be explicitly stated. Under these circumstances, the landlord’s “notice” may not have complied with the requirements of the MHPRA.
*1058¶ 63 Second, the general provision in the Utah Code regarding notice to a tenant for violation of a term of the lease, the forcible entry and detainer statute, requires the landlord to give “notice in writing requiring in the alternative the performance of the conditions or covenant or the surrender of the property.” Utah Code Ann. § 78-36-3(l)(e) (1996) (emphasis added). Again, as in the notice requirement of the MHPRA, the landlord must specify what the conditions of performance are, so that the tenant can proceed in an attempt to cure the problem, thus avoiding the severe remedy of eviction. Regarding notice in a situation involving the nonpayment of rent, this court has long held that statutory notice provisions must be strictly complied with, and that notices which failed to offer the alternative of payment of rent or surrender of the premises were defective and void. See Sovereen v. Meadows, 595 P.2d 852, 853-54 (Utah 1979); American Holding Co. v. Hanson, 23 Utah 2d 432, 464 P.2d 592, 593 (1970); Jacobson v. Swan, 3 Utah 2d 59, 278 P.2d 294, 300 (1954). As the court in Sovereen noted, “The unlawful de-tainer statute is a summary proceeding and in derogation of the common law. It provides a severe remedy, and this Court has previously held that it must be strictly complied with before the cause of action may be maintained.” Sovereen, 595 P.2d at 853 (citation omitted).
¶ 64 As noted above, the landlord did not give the type of notice required by the general notice statute applicable in tenancies outside of the mobile home park context. The notice was unclear as to whether the landlord’s claim was that the grandchild was not a member of Sparks’ family or that there were guests who were living in her trailer. Sparks could only speculate that there was something that the landlord wanted her to cure, but she would have no idea what that was. Given this court’s rulings that a landlord must take the highest level of care in providing a tenant with clear notice, it appears that the landlord did not spell out Sparks’ alleged violation to her in a manner that would be capable of remedy.
¶ 65 Finally, in analogous situations under other statutes, courts have required clear notice. Inasmuch as housing is one of the basic necessities of life, the termination of a lease is an event requiring strong safeguards to protect tenants from losing their homes without adequate opportunity to cure. The case under review involves a mobile home park, where the tenant is often likely to lack the means to defend his or her rights.5 In a somewhat analogous context, the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has promulgated a regulation requiring landlords of federally funded lower income housing programs to give specific notice to tenants of the reasons for their termination. The regulation provides that “[t]he landlord’s determination to terminate the tenancy shall ... state the reasons for the landlord’s action with enough specificity so as to enable the tenant to prepare a defense.” 24 C.F.R. § 247.4(a)(2) (1996). Noncompliance with the notice requirement will render the landlord’s termination invalid. See 24 C.F.R. § 247.3(a) (1996); Hill v. Paradise Apartments, Inc., 182 Ga.App. 834, 357 5.E.2d 288, 290 (1987).6
¶ 66 Noting the clear reason for the HUD regulation, the court in Hill stated, “The manifest purpose of the foregoing [regulation] is to afford procedural due process in eviction proceedings to tenants in federally subsidized housing projects, 1... to cure the evils of discriminatory and arbitrary eviction procedures prevalent in federally-subsidized housing_’” Hill, 357 S.E.2d at 290 (in*1059ternal quotation and citation omitted). While this regulation is inapplicable here, the reasoning is equally apposite under the state laws discussed above.
¶ 67 The landlord’s notice to Sparks is also problematic from a due process point of view because of its apparent confusion: it is unclear whether Sparks was being told to evict her guests or to evict her grandchild. If the grandchild was the cause of the alleged violation, the notice should specifically have said this. Otherwise, the landlord may be engaging in an impermissible form of discrimination while camouflaging its actions. Given the difficulties of showing any type of discriminatory intent or discriminatory treatment, the landlord should be required to state its true aims in the notice.
CONCLUSION
¶ 68 It has been noted:
Cases premised on alleged violations of the constitutional or civil rights of plaintiffs frequently are unsuitable for summary judgment. As is true with other cases involving important public issues, courts may refuse to grant summary judgment in these actions because it is felt that a fuller record is necessary in order to be able to decide properly the issues involved.
10B Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2732.2 (1998). This is such a case.
¶ 69 For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully dissent.
¶ 70 Justice STEWART acted prior to his retirement.

. It is not entirely clear that this sentence represents a sworn statement that other adults were living with Sparks at the time the seven-day notice was served. We assume, however, that the phrase "at one time” is merely sloppy draftsmanship rather than an attempt to evade the perjury statute.

. A jury could also find that the landlord chose to include the child in the eviction notice precisely to increase its bargaining power or to force Sparks to move even if the child was not the primary motivation. This use of an illegal discriminatory action is clearly prohibited by the law. A tenant should not be expected to treat a child as a bargaining chip or to contemplate splitting up a family. If the landlord has other disputes with a tenant, it must resolve those disputes without discriminatory statements and actions.

. Nevertheless, the majority states that "if a landlord presents multiple good faith justifications for an eviction, the tenant must show that the justifications are merely a pretext for discrimination. Otherwise, any alleged instance of discrimination is immaterial and the tenant cannot recover under a disparate treatment theory. ” This assertion is wrong. Sparks has presented clear evidence of facial discrimination, and need not engage in a McDonnell Douglas-type evidentiary probe.

. I acknowledge that I have treated the wording of the seven-day notice differently for purposes of the discrimination analysis above and this analysis. Given the entirely different standards applicable in each area, and especially the difficulty and centrality of proving intent in discrimination cases, this is entirely appropriate.

. In a case involving a warranty of habitability defense in an unlawful detainer situation, this court noted the lack of bargaining power of low-income tenants, stating that they “often have no meaningful choice but to accept and continue to live in substandard housing.” P.H. Inv. v. Oliver, 818 P.2d 1018, 1022 (Utah 1991). Thus, this court has explicitly acknowledged that low-income tenants can be forced to accept conditions in the terms of their rental housing that tenants with greater economic clout can reject.

. Where the tenant has not been harmed, however, by the failure to provide adequate reasons for termination, at least two Georgia cases have found that a judgment of dispossession will not be overruled on appeal. See Hill, 357 S.E.2d at 290; Smith v. Hendrix, 162 Ga.App. 299, 290 S.E.2d 504, 507 (1982).