Florida Federal Court Rules on Inaccessible HOA Portal and Email Accommodation

On February 4, 2026, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ruled on cross-motions for summary judgment in a housing accessibility dispute involving Waterford at Aberdeen Association, Inc. (Waterford). The court determined that the homeowners' association (HOA) discriminated against a visually impaired resident by failing to respond to a request for an email accommodation after she was unable to use an inaccessible portal.

Inaccessible Portals and Accommodation Requests

The plaintiff, who has a visual impairment and requires screen reader software, bought a home in the Waterford subdivision of Aberdeen Golf & Country Club. In December 2022, she notified Waterford that its website was inaccessible and requested large-print HOA materials. In October 2024, after initiating litigation, she reported that the portal operated by property manager GRS Management Company was also inaccessible, and she renewed a request to modify a swimming pool gate lock.

Because the online portal was inaccessible, the plaintiff sought alternative methods to handle resident tasks. She requested a large-print physical copy of an ACH direct deposit authorization form to pay HOA dues, along with a welcome packet in Arial 22 font. While a property manager employee stated that the large-print form was mailed, the plaintiff asserted that she never received it.

On November 18, 2024, the plaintiff requested an accommodation allowing her to submit repair and maintenance work orders via email rather than through the online portal. Although the property manager confirmed receipt of the request, management admitted during depositions that, under direction from the HOA, it did not follow up or respond.

The Court's Summary Judgment Decision

The plaintiff moved for summary judgment on claims under the federal Fair Housing Act (FHA) and the Florida Fair Housing Act (FLFHA), while Waterford moved for partial summary judgment on damages.

• Email Work Orders: The court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff on her failure-to-accommodate discrimination claim regarding maintenance requests. The court held that completely ignoring a reasonable accommodation request constitutes a constructive denial under the FHA. Because submitting work orders via email was necessary and imposed minimal burden, Waterford’s refusal constituted unlawful discrimination.
• Mailed ACH Form: The court denied summary judgment on whether Waterford failed to accommodate the plaintiff regarding the payment forms, finding that whether the large-print forms were actually mailed is a genuine dispute of material fact for a jury.
• Pool Gate Lock: The court rejected the plaintiff's summary judgment request regarding the inaccessible pool gate lock. The court explained that under 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(A), physical modifications must be made at the resident's expense, and an applicant must offer to pay for the alteration. Because the plaintiff never offered to pay for modifying the lock, Waterford could not be held liable for ignoring the request.
• Retaliation: The plaintiff alleged that Waterford retaliated against her accommodation requests by neglecting maintenance, failing to disclose safety hazards, and ignoring resident harassment. The court held that her work-order email accommodation request was protected activity known to Waterford, granting partial summary judgment on that specific element, while leaving the remaining retaliation questions for the jury.
• Damages Cap: Regarding Waterford's motion, the court capped potential damages for paid HOA dues and membership fees at $700 per month based on the plaintiff's testimony. All other damages issues—including property loss, diminution in property value, and punitive damages—were sent to trial.