Jennifer Oppenheim

Communications and Legal Practice

Hon. Dudley W. Gray II
January 28, 2013

Legal Brief
NAAH, Neighbors Against AIDS Homes, Marsha Gaskins, et al., v. Vickie G. Knight as
Trustee of the John King Trust and Administrator of Our House

The following brief is submitted upon behalf of the defendant, Vickie G. Knight
as Trustee of the John King Trust and Administrator of Our House, in connection with
the claims raised by NAAH, Neighbors Against AIDS Homes, Marsha Gaskins.

Statement of the Case

. Our House was established by John King, who provided that upon his death his
property located on Clover Street would be used as a group home for persons with AIDS.
NAAH has sued Our House alleging that its continued operation as such a group home
violates various local zoning ordinances; and constitutes both a public and private
nuisance under the law. It is acknowledged that Our House is located in a residential
neighborhood zoned for R1 use. Presently, six persons are living in the home (including
Knight), five of whom have Aids.

NAAHs Claims
NAAH, a loosely affiliated group of neighbors came together for the sole purpose of
harassing and coercing Our House to close its doors. NAAH claims in its lawsuit that
Our House: 1) is operating either as a health care facility or community based residential
facility in violation of local zoning ordinances; and 2) constitutes a public and private
nuisance. NAAH seeks a permanent injunction asking the court to close down Our
House. Plaintiff is also seeking attorneys fees and costs.
Our Houses Defenses
Our House submits that it is operating in full compliance with all applicable
zoning laws and that its operation does not constitute a public or private nuisance.
Furthermore, Our House submits that NAAH is discriminating against Our House in
violation of the Federal Fair Housing Act of 1989.
A. Zoning Claims
Section 201.1 of the District of Columbia zoning regulations states that one-family
detached dwellings are permissible in R-1 zoned communities and that with an approved
variance community-based residential facilities and/or or health care facilities for
between 5 to 8 adults may be operated in R-1 communities. Our House submits that it is
not a community based or health care facility, but rather constitutes a family dwelling as
defined in section 199 of the regulations and therefore did not have to seek any variances.
Specifically, family is defined in the regulations not only as a traditional family unit
but also includes one or more persons, but not more than 6 persons, who are not related

but live together as a single housekeeping unit, using certain rooms and housekeeping
facilities in common.
The evidence shows that the six people living in Our House consider this a family
unit. As Vickie Knight, the Administrator, and Terry Campbell, a resident stated they
share meals together whenever possible and share household chores. Just like any other
family unit when someone is terminally ill, accommodations are made, extra help is hired
to clean the house. One night a week is considered family night when outside family and
friends visit, very much like the traditional Sunday night dinner.
The only evidence that can be presented in support of NAAHs position is the
testimony of Ms. Buttle, a disgruntled former employee who says she was forced to
perform the duties of a nurse, by washing bedpans and soiled sheets while working at Our
House. The fact is that Ms. Buttle was the housekeeper and the fact that part of her duties
were to perform those tasks does not make this a health care facility. It is clear that the
AIDS patients living in Our House are seriously ill, but the level of care required is no
more than would be done for an ill family member who was being cared for at home.
Just as in a traditional family situation, medical help is required in the form of nurses and
in emergencies ambulances may have to be called. However, this does not render the
home a health care center as was the testimony of Dr. Moss who is an expert in the area
of infectious diseases and has treated the residents of Our House.
Moreover, the courts have found these type of group homes to be family dwellings
under regulations identical to those in the District of Columbia. For example, this
identical regulation was challenged in the state of Arizona. In that case, neighbors
attempted to stop the opening of a group home for the mentally handicapped. The court

in Williams v Schaeffer 108 Arizona Supr. Ct. 745 (1987) ruled that the operation
constituted a family within the meaning of the regulation and denied the request for an
injunction. In that case, the court stated that even with the structural alterations to the
house and the increased noise from the residents the house did not appear from the
outside to be any different from the rest of the neighborhood. This is virtually the same
factual scenario as that presented by Our House. From the outside, no one contends that it
stands out from the rest of the neighborhood. Defendant submits that it is not in violation
of the zoning laws.
B.

Nuisance
The plaintiffs would also like to close down Our House upon the basis that its

operation is both a public and private nuisance under the law. For a public nuisance, the
plaintiff must show that that the operation of Our House constitutes a danger to the
health, welfare or safety of the occupants. In Spring View Neighborhood Association v.
Well Fed Community Center, 31 Fed. 2nd 586 (1985), the court did grant an injunction
against a community center to stop them from feeding the homeless because neighbors
complained that the homeless were trespassing, doing drugs and urinating on their
property. Yet the court declined to issue a permanent injunction and allowed the
community center to come up with a plan to alleviate these issues.
To constitute a private nuisance the plaintiffs must show that there has been an
unreasonable interference with their land. Under Foont v Berland, 203 N.E. 2nd 1249
(1986) the plaintiffs would have to show that their annoyance with Our House arises from
an unreasonable use of the land. Clearly, the neighbors are annoyed. The ring leader of
NAAH, Marsha Gaskins, doesnt like looking at the disabled ramp installed at Our

House; she doesnt like the vans parked outside the property advertising Our House; and
she doesnt like the fact that the residents look weak and skinny. However, her
annoyance is not the result of the unreasonable use of the property by Our House. It is
because she has an irrational fear of AIDS which has crippled her to such an extent that
she doesnt even let her children outside to play. Clearly, not a private nuisance.
Our Houses Claim of Discrimination
Our House claims that it is NAAH that is acting unlawfully. Specifically, NAAHs
conduct is discriminatory under the Federal Fair Housing Act which prohibits
discrimination in the sale or rental of property on the basis of a physical handicap. The
law further states that it is unlawful to interfere with the exercise or enjoyment of a
right protected under the law. Clearly, NAAH is seeking this injunction so that Our House
will have to close. The leader of NAAH has made it clear that she believes that Our
House will contribute to the spread of Aids. NAAHs motivation is obvious and intended
to thwart the law banning such discrimination.
In conclusion the defendant requests that the Court deny the request for an
injunction and instead find that the plaintiff is discriminating against Our House under
the Federal fair Housing Act.