Christmas Lights and Legal Fights: Federal Court Questions Enforcement of HOA’s Holiday Decoration Rules Under the Fair Housing Act
Holiday displays are a frequent source of contention within community associations, often raising questions about how to regulate them fairly and uniformly. Courts have consistently emphasized that community associations can enforce reasonable restrictions on holiday decorations, provided these rules are neutral, uniformly applied, and focused on objective factors like time, location, and size. For example, in Osborne v Power, 319 Ark 52; 890 SW2d 574 (1994), an Arkansas court enforced restrictive covenants to prevent a massive holiday light display that disrupted the neighbors. Similarly, in Pointe of Woods Condo Ass’n v Doel, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued March 25, 2003 (Docket No. 236617), 2003 WL 1558086, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that rules limiting the time period that holiday lights could be displayed were enforceable when an owner kept icicle lights up for seven consecutive months. The court stated that the condominium association’s rules related to holiday decorations were enforceable as they were facially neutral and applied equally to all holidays.
However, a recent case, Morris v W Hayden Estates First Addition Homeowners Ass’n, 104 F4th 1128, 1135 (CA 9, 2024), which was featured in the documentary, Twas the Fight before Christmas, illustrates issues how holiday decorations may create Fair Housing violations. In Morris, a homeowner claimed religious discrimination after being asked to remove an elaborate Christmas display. The jury originally awarded $75,000 to the homeowner, Jeremy Morris, determining that the HOA’s enforcement of its restrictive covenants constituted religious discrimination. The trial court judge reversed the jury’s verdict and ultimately held that the HOA could enforce facially neutral deed restrictions. While the Ninth Circuit upheld a large portion of the trial court’s ruling, it also remanded the case to determine whether the homeowners association had created a hostile environment in violation of the Fair Housing Act. As such, while this case re-affirms that community associations may enforce facially neutral restrictive covenants related to holiday displays, it is also a cautionary tale that homeowners association should avoid commentary that could give rise to claims of religious discrimination in the enforcement process.
Facts
In 2014, Jeremy and Kristy Morris began hosting an elaborate Christmas lights display featuring thousands of lights, costumed characters, a live nativity scene with a camel named Dolly, and activities like serving hot chocolate and hosting musical performances. The Christmas event attracted significant attention, drawing hundreds of families and even buses of visitors from nearby retirement homes. When the Morrises considered moving to West Hayden Estates in 2015, they informed the HOA of their plans to continue the display. The HOA Board sent a letter expressing concerns that the event would violate restrictive covenants prohibiting non-residential use, nuisances, and excessive lighting. Additionally, the Board raised concerns about increased traffic. The letter concluded as follows:
And finally, I am somewhat hesitant in bringing up the fact that some of our residents are non-Christians or of another faith and I don’t even want to think of the problems that could bring up. It is not the intention of the Board to discourage you from becoming part of our great neighborhood but we do not wish to become entwined in any expensive litigation to enforce long standing rules and regulations and fill our neighborhood with the hundreds of people and possible undesirables. We have worked hard to keep our area peaceful, quiet, and clean. Neighbors respect the CC&R’s and show common courtesy to those around them. These are reasons why people want to live here.
Despite the HOA’s objections and a subsequent member vote against the Christmas event, the Morrises purchased the home and proceeded with their holiday decorations. Their 2015 Christmas display featured 200,000 lights, volunteers, costumed characters, buses transporting visitors, and charity activities. The HOA Board, via their attorney, sent the Morrises a letter expressing concern that the planned event would not comply with local zoning ordinances and would violate HOA rules prohibiting nuisances, excessive lighting, and the keeping of animals other than “ordinary household pets.” The letter further stated: “Unless you request and receive written approval from the Association Board to conduct your planned event, the Board has authorized this office to file an action seeking an injunction to prevent your event from occurring.”
The Morrises did not receive written approval but went forward with the event as planned. The Morrises surrounded their house with an estimated 200,000 lights, thirty volunteers, costumed characters (representing, among others, the Grinch, Frosty the Snowman, Santa Claus, and Clifford the Big Red Dog), several musical guests, a children’s choir, an antique cotton candy machine, charity tables, security personnel, a live nativity scene, and, once again, Dolly the camel. Four commercial buses carried visitors to the event, and traffic supervisors directed visitors’ cars through the streets around the house. The HOA took no legal action in 2015. The Morrises held a larger program in 2016, which had five buses and 48 volunteers, and added four “hot chocolate elves” to the attractions. The HOA received complaints from residents regarding trash, traffic, and one incident of public urination by a child, allegedly generated by the Christmas programs. On at least two occasions, Jeremy Morris became involved in public arguments with other West Hayden Estates residents. According to the Morrises, during one such argument, a West Hayden resident, Larry Bird, made threats against Morris.
In 2017, the Morrises filed a lawsuit in federal court, asserting that the West Hayden Estates HOA violated the Fair Housing Act. The HOA counterclaimed, asking the court to issue an injunction stopping the Morrises from holding their Christmas program in West Hayden Estates. After a jury trial, the jury determined that the HOA had violated the Fair Housing Act and awarded $60,000 in compensatory damages and $15,000 in punitive damages. The trial court overturned the verdict and held that the restrictive covenants were enforceable and that no violation of the Fair Housing Act occurred. The Morrises appealed and the Ninth Circuit’s opinion will be discussed below.
Discriminatory Treatment and Interference– 42 USC 3604(b)
The Morrises brought a claim under 42 USC 3604(b) of the Fair Housing Act, which prohibits discrimination on protected grounds, including religion, “in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith.” The court stated that since the HOA’s restrictive covenants were facially neutral and did not target Christians, this claim must be viewed as a disparate treatment claim. Under a discriminatory treatment claim, the Morrises may prevail by producing direct or circumstantial evidence demonstrating that a discriminatory reason more likely than not motivated the HOA and that the HOA’s actions adversely affected them. The court stated that the evidence need not prove that the discriminatory purpose was the sole purpose of the challenged action, but only that it was a motivating factor. In short, the court found no violation because the Morrises did not change their behavior to avoid bylaw enforcement action by the HOA, so the trial court was correct in reversing the jury verdict on this issue.
Similarly, the court did note that the HOA was not responsible for harassment by other residents under 42 USC 3604(b). The court held that the HOA only had the authority to enforce the governing documents, and since the Morrises did not identify any specific restrictive covenants or rules that they failed to enforce, it could not be held liable for the acts of the residents, which were outside of the HOA’s control. Thus, the court concluded that the HOA was not liable for the alleged harassment, making it unnecessary to determine whether the harassment met the threshold of being severe or pervasive or was based on religion.
Intimidation and Interference with Religious Beliefs – 42 USC 3617
The Morrises also brought a claim under 42 USC 3617 of the Fair Housing Act, which prohibits the coercion, intimidation, threatening, or interference with any person in the exercise or enjoyment of rights protected by other provisions of the Fair Housing Act, such as the right to be free from religious discrimination. The claim focused on actions by the HOA Board, including a January 2015 letter discouraging their Christmas program and a subsequent community meeting that fostered opposition to the Morrises’ event. Evidence such as the Board’s comments about not wanting Christian beliefs “pressed on the community” and a statement by a Board member that “somebody in the association doesn’t like Christmas” supported the jury’s conclusion that religious animus partially motivated the HOA’s actions. While the HOA did not outright prevent the Morrises from hosting their event or purchasing their home, the jury found that the HOA’s actions constituted intimidation and interference in violation of the Fair Housing Act, which could create a hostile environment. The appellate court determined that a jury could find sufficient evidence to support claims of anti-Christian bias as a motivating factor in the HOA’s conduct.
Publication of Discriminatory Statements – 42 USC 3604(c)
The Morrises also brought a claim under 42 USC 3604(c) of the Fair Housing Act, which prohibits any party engaged in the sale or rental of a dwelling from making, printing, or publishing … any notice, statement, or advertisement, with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling that indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on a protected characteristic, including religion. The Morrises claimed that the letter from HOA violated 42 USC 3604(c), but the trial court and appellate court rejected this argument. The court applied the “ordinary reader” standard, evaluating whether an average person would interpret the letter as expressing a preference based on a protected characteristic, such as religion. Although the letter mentioned the concerns of non-Christian residents regarding the Morrises’ proposed Christmas program, it did not indicate a preference for non-religious homebuyers. Instead, the letter addressed potential neighborhood disturbances. While aspects of the letter suggested opposition to the program’s Christian associations, it also expressed respect for religious traditions. The court found no sufficient evidence to support the jury’s conclusion that the letter favored non-religious buyers and upheld the district court’s judgment in favor of the HOA.
Conclusion
In Morris v W Hayden Estates First Addition Homeowners Ass’n, 104 F4th 1128, 1135 (CA 9, 2024), a majority of the panel held that a new trial should be held to determine whether the HOA violated 42 USC 3617 of the Fair Housing Act. While the district court was largely affirmed, the majority of the court determined that a reasonable jury could determine that HOA’s conduct toward the Morrises was motivated at least in part by an intent to discriminate against them based on religion. Accordingly, the injunction issued by the district court permitting the enforcement of the restrictive covenants was overturned, and the appellate court held that whether the HOA may enforce the deed restrictions against the Morrises consistent with the Fair Housing Act will depend on whether the jury after retrial concludes that the HOA was motivated in part by a discriminatory purpose in its interactions with the Morrises. However, the Ninth Circuit upheld the trial court decisions in finding that the HOA did not violate 42 USC 3604(b) or 42 USC 3604(c).
The appellate opinion also contained a partial concurrence, and a dissent, so there was no unanimous agreement as to how this case should have been decided. As such, this is why Jeremy Morris, aka the Christmas Lawyer, has appealed to the United States Supreme Court. However, consistent with Pointe of Woods Condo Ass’n v Doel, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued March 25, 2003 (Docket No. 236617), 2003 WL 1558086, this opinion holds that the enforcement of facially neutral holiday restrictions likely will not violate the Fair Housing Act. However, when enforcing facially neutral holiday restrictions, community associations should avoid editorializing and making comments about religious preferences, as they may lead to claims under the Fair Housing Act.
Kevin Hirzel is the Managing Member of Hirzel Law, PLC. He concentrates his practice on commercial litigation, community association law, condominium law, Fair Housing Act compliance, homeowners association law, and real estate law. Mr. Hirzel is a fellow in the College of Community Association Lawyers, a prestigious designation given to less than 175 attorneys in the country. Mr. Hirzel has been recognized as a Michigan Super Lawyer’s Rising Star in Real Estate Law by Super Lawyers Magazine, a Leading Lawyer in Condominium & HOA law by Leading Lawyers Magazine, and as a Best Lawyer in Real Estate Law by U.S News and World Report’s Best Lawyers Publication. Hirzel Law, PLC represents community associations, condominium associations, cooperatives, and homeowners associations, in Michigan and Illinois. He may be reached at (248) 986-2290 or kevin@hirzellaw.com.
