Q&A: Adults-Only Pool?

Q My client has children and lives next to their HOA’s swimming pool, which the whole family enjoys very much. In fact, they purchased the home specifically because it was next to the pool. Their association has since been turned over from the sponsor to the homeowners, and a rule has just been circulated that all persons under 18 years of age can no longer use that pool. Minors must use another pool on the other side of the development that is about 30 percent smaller. The neighborhood has children, but not a lot. Both pools are common areas, and of course under the HOA’s covenants, all homeowners have the right to use the common areas. The homeowners have just hired a local property management company to run things for them.

“I am interested in any opinions about the validity of such a rule. Does this rise to the level of a violation of the Fair Housing Act discrimination in the use of facilities based on age? It seems to me that the rule is more like a restriction and not permissible to limit, absent a proper amendment to the declaration.”

—NJ Attorney Seeking Legal Advice

A Ronald L. Perl of Hill Wallack LLP in Princeton, answers, “The Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 (FHAA) precludes policies, rules procedures and/or practices which have either the intent or the effect of discriminating against families with children. This would include policies, rules procedures and/or practices relating both to access to housing and access to recreational facilities as well. For example in United States v. Plaza Mobile Estates, 273 F. Supp 2d 1084 (CD Cal 2003), a mobile home park was sued by the Department of Justice because of restrictions on the use of facilities based on age. Those restrictions included a prohibition on bicycle riding on the streets by children under 14 years of age (except when accompanied by an adult resident); allowing children under age eight to play only in the fenced yard area of a residence; prohibiting children from playing on streets or in other common areas; barring children under 18 years of age from the clubhouse and other facilities unless accompanied by a registered adult from their own unit; and limiting use of the pool and sun deck by residents and visitors under age 18 to the hours between 10 a.m. and noon.

“The court concluded that a prima facie case of discrimination had been demonstrated ‘By showing facially discriminatory rules which treat children, and thus, families with children, differently and less favorably than adults-only households . . .’ Once a prima facie case is established, the defendant must show that their rules constitute a ‘compelling business necessity and that they have used the least restrictive means to achieve that end.’

“A common example of rules and policies which may violate the FHAA concerns access to swimming pools. In HUD v. Paradise Gardens, Section II Homeowners Association, 1992 WL 406531 (H.U.D.A.L.J.) (October 15, 1992) 90 percent of the residents were over 55 years of age. The rules included the following: (a). Guest children under 16 but over five years of age will be permitted to use the pool between the hours of 11:00 and 2:00 only; (b) Children under 10 years of age must be accompanied by an adult in the pool; (c) Children under five years of age are not allowed in the pool at any time.

“The court stated that property owners or managers can implement reasonable rules and regulations to protect residents’ health and safety. However it found that these rules, on their face, discriminated against families with children and interfered with their enjoyment and use of the facilities of Paradise Gardens and therefore violated the FHAA. The court rejected the arguments of Paradise Gardens that their rules were based on reasonable health and safety considerations.

Read More...

Related Articles

Q&A: Smoking in the Building

Q&A: Smoking in the Building

Q&A: Holding a Garage Sale on a Parking Lot

Q&A: Holding a Garage Sale on a Parking Lot

Q&A: First-Floor Condo Built on Pads

Q&A: First-Floor Condo Built on Pads

 

Comments

  • I live in a community that has an upper, small 3feet deep pool that adjoins a small hot tub, on the lower lovel is a large state of the art size pool, a 'kiddle slide' and smaller pool for children under 10 years of age, and a smaller 3 feet pool area for parent or others with small children.. The upper area was for 'adults only' but was changed supposedly due to the FHAA rulings. The upper and lower pool are in the same area, guided by the same rules and hours of operation,(except their are no life guards for the upper pool), and accessed by stairs. My question is, if an area and pool can be cited as 'children only', and fit into the rulings...why not adults only? The children and teens seem to have taken over the upper area and seniors and the disabled, who use the upper pool are being forced out by these disrespectful kids. Is it in violation to go back to 'adults only' or to perhaps to create a 'senior/handicap only' pool area?