2026-09-10 · Florida · Courts

What happened. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit — which binds Florida, Georgia and Alabama — held that a homeowners' association's treatment of an existing owner can violate federal fair-housing and civil-rights law, and reversed the dismissal of her complaint.

Watts v. Joggers Run Property Owners Association, Inc., No. 22-13763, 133 F.4th 1032, was decided on 7 April 2025 and marked [PUBLISH] — it is binding precedent, not an unpublished disposition. The panel was Judge Abudu, joined by Judges Jordan and Brasher, with Judge Jordan concurring. The appeal came from the Southern District of Florida, D.C. Docket No. 9:22-cv-80121-AMC.¹

The holding

Sara Watts, a Black homeowner, alleged that her property owners association cited her selectively, restricted her access to amenities, and harassed her. The district court dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6). The Eleventh Circuit reversed and remanded, holding that she had stated plausible claims under Fair Housing Act §§ 3604(b) and 3617 and Civil Rights Act §§ 1981 and 1982.

“we conclude that the district court too narrowly construed the FHA, Section 1981, and Section 1982, and that Watts plausibly stated claims for relief for all the alleged statutory violations.”

The reasoning that matters most

On § 1982, the court framed the allegation in terms that generalise well beyond this community:

“Watts alleged that the HOA created a dual property system: White owners could fully enjoy the amenities, common areas, and services that flowed from their property while Watts, as a Black resident, could not.”

Judge Jordan's concurrence catalogued the specific conduct alleged — “having her car towed from her property contrary to the association's rules, closing down the basketball court because of a belief that too many Black kids were at the court, and racial harassment that forced her to sell her home” — and located it squarely within § 3604(b)'s reference to the “provision of services or facilities.”

A footnote observes that Joggers Run is styled a “Property Owners Association,” and distinguishes Chapter 720 homeowners' associations from Chapter 712 property owners associations.

Why this is a shift and not a restatement

The recurring defence in cases of this kind has been that the Fair Housing Act governs access to housing — sale, rental, financing — and not what happens to an owner afterwards. Watts squarely rejects that framing as applied to an association's provision of services and facilities. Post-acquisition conduct is in scope at the pleading stage.

1. Watts v. Joggers Run Property Owners Association, Inc., No. 22-13763, 133 F.4th 1032 (11th Cir. 7 April 2025) ↩
2. Park Crossing Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Suarez, Nos. 4D2023-3116 and 4D2024-0170 (Fla. 4th DCA 30 April 2025) ↩
3. Carlton Condominium Association, Inc. v. Miniaci, No. 4D2025-1458 (Fla. 4th DCA 3 September 2025) ↩