Marbrunak, Inc. v. City of Stow (1992)
- Sam Shepherd
- Jun 12
- 3 min read
By Kwasi Bonsu
Overview
Marbrunak, Inc. v. City of Stow is a federal case in which the city of Stow, Ohio, enacted a
zoning ordinance that established safety requirements for single-family homes. However, these were different from those imposed on single-family dwellings with nondisabled individuals, leading to a disparity in treatment on the part of the city. Subsequently, Marbrunak, Inc., a non-profit corporation that provides housing for the disabled, brought suit against the city, claiming the ordinance violated the Fair Housing Act (FHA).
Summary
In April 1990, a nonprofit created by the parents of mentally disabled women, Marbrunak, Inc., bought a house in the city of Stow, Ohio, to establish a family consortium. A family consortium is a home where neurodivergent and disabled individuals are provided for by relatives as an extension of the family home and life. Moreover, they were awarded a grant by Ohio’s governing department for mental and developmental disabilities. As such, they were encouraged to create a family-like environment, however, the area of the house was zoned for single-family dwellings.
So, Marbrunak needed a conditional use permit before turning it into a boarding house.
Afterwards, the city law director told them the home must satisfy section 153.149 of the city’s
zoning code, which establishes extensive safety protections for family consortiums. These
installations included sprinkler systems with alarms, fire-retardant wall and floor coverings,
lighted exit signs above all doorways, and other safety features. These requirements were stricter and more extensive than the state department’s regulations on family consortiums and single-family dwellings.
The parents were advised to petition the Stow Board of Zoning Appeals to modify the safety, but they chose to file a lawsuit with the district court, arguing that the City of Stow violated the Fair Housing Amendment Act of 1988.
The court concluded that the zoning ordinance violated the Fair Housing Amendment Act based on three premises: 1. It is unlawful to discriminate against a person in the sale of a dwelling based on their handicap status, and 2. That discrimination includes the refusal to create reasonable accommodations in the rules to provide a person with a disability equal opportunity, and 3. The conditional use permit that they supposedly required was unnecessary, as the family consortium they were trying to create counted as single-family use. The court also stated its intent and historical opposition to discriminatory zoning practices that prevent handicapped persons' residential freedom.
The city appealed this decision, not arguing against the lack of necessity for a conditional use permit, but for lack of standing. Stow stated that the parents have not suffered the required extent of injury because the zoning code was not enforced. This brought into question the “ripeness” of the case and whether they would have to apply for a petition and be turned down before challenging the ordinance. The court of appeals agreed with the parents on the basis that it would be unreasonable and unpredictable for the city to modify the ordinance on an ad hoc basis. In addition, the court stated that the application for variance from the ordinance code does not guarantee a non-discriminatory outcome for handicapped individuals. The parents cross-appealed, claiming the trial court abused its discretion by denying an award for attorney’s fees and costs. The court remanded that to the district court due to the inability to determine validity.
Impact
Marbrunak Inc. vs City of Stow established a precedent that prioritizes the economic and
residential freedom of disabled individuals over outdated regulations. Should some statutes limit and discriminate against the rights of the handicapped, this case creates a framework to combat such circumstances. This is a reply to the prevalence of selectively helpful institutions and systems that are not made for the benefit of those in need. This amplifies the effect of equal opportunity and how all levels of the government can be held accountable for not upholding that standard.
Court Documents
Marbrunak, Inc., Plaintiff-appellee, Cross-appellant, v. City of Stow, Ohio,
Defendant-appellant, Cross-appellee, 974 F.2d 43 (6th Cir. 1992)
Citations
Studicata Marbrunak, Inc. v. City of Stow 974 F.2d 43 (6th Cir. 1992)
Justia Law. (1992, May 8)
