In
Morris v. West Hayden Estates First Addition Homeowners Association, Inc., (D ID, April 4, 2019), an Idaho federal district judge enjoined a Christian couple from hosting an elaborate Christmas display that violates Homeowner Association Rules. As described by the
Spokane Spokesman-Review's report on the decision:
On one side, a devoutly Christian couple throwing extravagant celebrations for thousands at a home decked to the halls with 200,000 light bulbs. At times, even featuring a camel and donkey to re-create the Nativity scene.
On the opposite side, a Hayden homeowners association with specific rules that prohibited such excessive celebrations – and the noise that follows – in favor of a more modest showing of holiday spirit.
Despite a jury verdict in favor of plaintiffs, the court ruled as a matter of law that plaintiffs had not shown that the Homeowners Association discriminated against them on the basis of religion in violation of the Federal Fair Housing Act. Plaintiff had pointed to a letter from the Homeowners Association which described rule violations that would be involved in the Christmas display. The letter added that some of the subdivision residents are non-Christians. The court said in part:
While January 2015 Letter was not drafted with lawyerly precision and contained a boorish reference to “undesireables,” it cannot be read as evidence that the Homeowners Association intended to discriminate against Plaintiffs because they were Christian. On this score, the Court notes that several members of the Board were practicing Christians. Furthermore, Board President Jennifer Scott is both a practicing Christian and married to a Christian minister. The Court is not suggesting that Christians cannot, per se, discriminate against other Christians. But, the fact that the Board was at least partially composed of practicing Christians significantly decreases the probability that the Board intended to discriminate against Plaintiffs based on a faith shared by both Plaintiffs and several Board members.
The court concluded that the jury was likely prejudiced by testimony which they were instructed to ignore relating to threats received by plaintiffs from other homeowners who were not Association board members. Because the decision is likely to be appealed, the court held that if its conclusion of law was reversed, defendants should be granted a new trial or alternatively the jury's award of $75,000 in damages should be reduced to $4.
