DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

§ 290

Citation
§ 290
Parent Document
Francis v. Kings Park Manor, Inc., 992 F.3d 67 (2021)
Effective Date
2021-03-25
Original Source
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4867798/francis-v-kings-park-manor-inc/ ↗

Other Sections in This Document (993)

Full Text

1,425 chars 
counterfactually presumed that it was confronted with a typical landlord-tenant
relationship—i.e., one with virtually no resemblance to custodial care at all.
Therefore, we cannot accept the proposition that Wetzel purports to set a “floor” for
landlord liability for tenant conduct under the FHA. In any event, the Seventh
Circuit’s decision in Wetzel, while instructive, is of course not binding on this Court.
       41 Francis I, 944 F. 3d at 391 (“The defendant-landlord [in Wetzel] was alleged
not only to have failed to remediate harassment of the plaintiff by other residents,
but also . . . to have itself barred the plaintiff from common spaces that she was
entitled to frequent.”)
       42 Francis’s lease with KPM contained provisions that arguably prohibited
the actions Francis imputes to Endres. See A.61 Landlord-Tenant Agreement § B(4)
(“Tenant shall not allow or commit any objectionable or disorderly conduct . . . that
disturbs or interferes with the rights, comforts, or conveniences of other residents”);
A.63 HAP Contract Addendum § 8(c)(1)(a) (“The owner may terminate the tenancy
during the term of the lease if any member of the household commits . . . [a]ny
criminal activity that threatens the health or safety of, or the right to peaceful
enjoyment of the premises by, other residents.”). However, even if we were to
assume that Endres’s lease with KPM contained substantially identical terms to