Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Union River Associates v. Budman, 2004 ME 48 (2004)

Citation
Union River Associates v. Budman, 2004 ME 48 (2004)
Parent Document
Union River Associates v. Budman, 2004 ME 48 (2004)
Jurisdiction
Maine (state)
Effective Date
2004-04-08

Other Sections in This Document (49)

Full Text

775 chars
[¶ 14] Budman also failed to prove that he voiced his complaint of discrimination “to a body charged with enforcement” of the applicable statutes. 14 M.R.S.A. § 6001(3)(B). Neither the apartments’ manager nor a municipal police officer are representatives or members of a body charged with enforcement of the federal Fair Housing Act or the Maine Human Rights Act. Therefore, although the District Court, in the exercise of its jurisdiction over actions for forcible entry and detainer, should have considered Budmaris evidence of discrimination in conjunction with the rebuttable presumption established in section 6001(3)(B), the court’s failure to consider the evidence was harmless because Budman failed to establish the elements required to give rise to the presumption.