Opinion
Case No. 02-0720-CV-W-DW.
April 12, 2005
ORDER
On August 24, 2004, the Court entered its Order denying the Veals' motionfor a new trial. (Doc. No. 119.) The Veals now ask that the Court revisit its Order in view of two federal cases recently decided outside of this circuit. See Halprin v. Prairie Single Family Homes of Dearborn Park Ass'n, 388 F.3d 327 (7th Cir. 2004); King v. Metcalf 56 Homes Ass'n, 2004 WL 2538379 (D. Kan. Nov. 8, 2004). In both of those cases, it was held that the Fair Housing Act (FHA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601 et seq., does not allow for "post-residence acquisition" claims. The courts concluded that the FHA prohibits discriminatoryacts committed during the sale or rental of housing, but does not speak to discriminatory acts that occur after housing has been acquired. These holdings, the Veals argue, should lead this Court to vacate its earlier Order.
Contrary to the Veals' argument, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has recognized that claims of discrimination, based on acts that occurred after the acquisition of property, are actionable under the FHA. Neudecker v. Boisclair Corp., 351 F.3d 361, 364-65 (8th Cir. 2003). See also United States v. Koch, 352 F. Supp. 2d 970 (D. Neb. 2004) (stating that, inlight of Neudecker, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals would not agree with the Halprin decision).
In a lengthy and well-analyzed opinion, District Court Judge Warren Urbom concluded that, under existing circuit law, the FHA permits post-acquisition claims. Koch, 352 F. Supp. 2d at 973. Judge Urbom went on to highlight the illogic of theHalprin court's reasoning and criticized the appellate court's interpretation of the plain language and legislative history of § 3604 and § 3617. Id. at 974-79. This Court finds Judge Urbom's opinion extremely persuasive.
Because a plaintiff, at least in the Eighth Circuit, can base a § 3604 or § 3617 claim on discriminatory acts that occurred after housing has been acquired, the Court denies the Veals' request to revisit its earlier Order.
It is worth noting that acts of post-sale discrimination have been successfully litigated under the FHA in two other reported cases — a United States Supreme Court case, Trafficante v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 409 U.S. 205 (1972), and, ironically, a Seventh Circuit case, Krueger v. Cuomo, 115 F.3d 487 (7th Cir. 1997).
IT IS SO ORDERED.