Southwest Fair Housing Council v. Mdwid, 17 F.4th 950 (2021)

Southwest Fair Housing Council v. Mdwid, 17 F.4th 950 (2021) United States federal

Finally, Appellants propose the District apply the Security Deposit Policy to all its customers, rather than applying it solely to public housing residents. Requiring the District to increase all its customers’ costs and burdens by applying the Security Deposit Policy...

Southwest Fair Housing Council v. Mdwid, 17 F.4th 950 (2021)

Southwest Fair Housing Council v. Mdwid, 17 F.4th 950 (2021) United States federal

Now, had the District set the security deposit at clearly excessive amounts relative to predictable monthly water bills for individual units (say, $500 or $1000), or had the District failed to proffer evidence that its security deposit amount was keyed...

Southwest Fair Housing Council v. Mdwid, 17 F.4th 950 (2021)

Southwest Fair Housing Council v. Mdwid, 17 F.4th 950 (2021) United States federal

Plaintiffs-Appellants Tavita Peña and Jennifer Peters both moved into units at Edwards Circle in 2016 and had difficulty paying the District’s heightened security deposit. Peña is Hispanic, Peters is White, and both are single mothers with children. Both...

Crochet v. Housing Authority, 37 F.3d 607 (1994)

Crochet v. Housing Authority, 37 F.3d 607 (1994) United States federal

...The court noted, however, that a security deposit was not “compensation ... for the use ... of the land” but more in the nature of a trust fund. Thus, because a security deposit was not compensation for the use of land, a...

Southwest Fair Housing Council v. Mdwid, 17 F.4th 950 (2021)

Southwest Fair Housing Council v. Mdwid, 17 F.4th 950 (2021) United States federal

18 Appellants also suggest pegging the security deposit to a tenant’s payment history or credit rating or to reduce the size of the security deposit but provide no evidence that either solution is equally effective or would be less...

§ 3601

Rita Fox v. Lucille F. Gaines, 4 F.4th 1293 (2021) United States federal

month’s rent, and a security deposit, but she soon found it difficult to make her full

Crochet v. Housing Authority Of The City Of Tampa, 37 F.3d 607 (1994)

Crochet v. Housing Authority Of The City Of Tampa, 37 F.3d 607 (1994) United States federal

...The court noted, however, that a security deposit was not "compensation ... for the use ... of the land" but more in the nature of a trust fund. Thus, because a security deposit was not compensation for the use of land, a...

McGee v. Erie Insurance Company (2018)

McGee v. Erie Insurance Company (2018) United States federal

the rent paid for May 2017, and her full $4,500 security deposit,” which the Church ignored. Id.

Southwest Fair Housing Council v. Mdwid, 17 F.4th 950 (2021)

Southwest Fair Housing Council v. Mdwid, 17 F.4th 950 (2021) United States federal

Appellants next argue that the District should instead seek to collect the delinquencies from the public housing customers responsible rather than institute a prophylactic security deposit policy. Setting aside the fact that letters sent to Pinal County show the District...

McGee v. Erie Insurance Company (2018)

McGee v. Erie Insurance Company (2018) United States federal

Columbia law. Id. ¶¶ 9, 12. Ms. McGee paid a $4,500 security deposit and made rent payments of $4,000 per month thereafter. Id. ¶ 11.

Southwest Fair Housing Council v. Mdwid, 17 F.4th 950 (2021)

Southwest Fair Housing Council v. Mdwid, 17 F.4th 950 (2021) United States federal

The next question is whether the District’s Security Deposit Policy serves that interest in a significant way. It is the District’s burden to establish that the challenged portions of the policy, i.e., those “practices causing the disparate...

Southwest Fair Housing Council v. Mdwid, 17 F.4th 950 (2021)

Southwest Fair Housing Council v. Mdwid, 17 F.4th 950 (2021) United States federal

...The District’s Security Deposit Policy requires public housing residents (tenants of Pinal County) to pay an $180 refundable security deposit. Non-public housing residents are not subject to that increase and pay only $55. Persons who are residents of...

Southwest Fair Housing Council v. Mdwid, 17 F.4th 950 (2021)

Southwest Fair Housing Council v. Mdwid, 17 F.4th 950 (2021) United States federal

disproportionate percentage of protected-group members were subject to an increased security deposit.

Southwest Fair Housing Council v. Mdwid, 17 F.4th 950 (2021)

Southwest Fair Housing Council v. Mdwid, 17 F.4th 950 (2021) United States federal

...Appellants are not complaining that the Security Deposit Policy contributed to an overrepresentation of protected-group members in public housing. Rather, Appellants complain that the District’s tying security deposit prices to public housing status directly caused the discrete adverse...

Southwest Fair Housing Council v. Mdwid, 17 F.4th 950 (2021)

Southwest Fair Housing Council v. Mdwid, 17 F.4th 950 (2021) United States federal

Here, because the District explicitly applied the adverse effects of the policy—increasing the security deposit to $180—only to a subset of its customer base, the causation analysis is not all that complicated. The adverse impact complained about by...

Philomena Badami v. Terry Flood, 214 F.3d 994 (2000)

Philomena Badami v. Terry Flood, 214 F.3d 994 (2000) United States federal

As regards the requested $3000 security deposit on the Seminole property, Mr. Flood stated that the additional $2400 he requested of the Badamis (the difference between the deposit requested of the Badamis and the $600 deposit requested of other potential...

§ 706

Aponte-Rosario v. Acevedo-Vilá, 617 F.3d 1 (2010) United States federal

17 In his deposition testimony, the Director of the PRPHA, Mr. Carlos Laboy-Díaz, recognized that as of 2007, the PRPHA had received complaints from residents regarding problems with the buildings' elevators and water system and complaints regarding security issues...

Southwest Fair Housing Council v. Mdwid, 17 F.4th 950 (2021)

Southwest Fair Housing Council v. Mdwid, 17 F.4th 950 (2021) United States federal

We therefore conclude that there is no triable issue of material fact as to whether the District demonstrated a legitimate business justification for implementing the Security Deposit Policy.

Southwest Fair Housing Council v. Mdwid, 17 F.4th 950 (2021)

Southwest Fair Housing Council v. Mdwid, 17 F.4th 950 (2021) United States federal

12 Neither does the District contest that the increase of a required, up-front security deposit to $180 operates as a significant adversity.  SW. FAIR HOUSING V. MARICOPA DOMESTIC WATER 25

Ceola Cooks v. Roland Fowler, T/a J. Edward Fowler and Son, 455 F.2d 1281 (1971)

Ceola Cooks v. Roland Fowler, T/a J. Edward Fowler and Son, 455 F.2d 1281 (1971) United States federal

Our earlier opinion made clear our decision to require security deposits pending litigation of the appeal, and the standard by which the deposits are to be measured. To the extent that the parties’ memoranda attempt to relitigate those questions, they...