By Jonathan Friedman
Lookout Staff

April 13, 2010 -- Los Angeles Clippers’ owner Donald Sterling does not have to participate in a federal housing assistance program known as Section 8, a California Court of Appeal panel ruled last week. An elderly widow has been in a legal battle with the landlord since 2004 to force him to accept rent for her Santa Monica apartment through the program.

Section 8 is part of the United States Housing Act of 1937. With the program, a local housing authority pays 70 percent of a lease through a federally funded voucher.

Elisheba Sabi, an Iranian immigrant who moved into the apartment with her husband in 1987, applied with her husband for a Section 8 voucher in 1998. The Housing Authority of the City of Santa Monica accepted the couple into the program in 2003. But Sterling refused to accept the vouchers.

Sabi’s husband died in 2004. She has continued to live in the home and pay rent, most likely through the assistance of her sons, the court decision states. Sabi and her attorneys alleged various forms of discrimination, including regarding source of income. California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act does not allow discrimination based on source of income.

A trial court decided in 2007 that this did not apply to Sterling’s refusal. The appellate court agreed in a decision written by Associate Justice Madeleine Flier, and signed by Presiding Justice Tricia A. Bigelow and Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Peter Lichtman, who had a special assignment for this case.

“A voucher is not income and it is not ‘paid’ to anyone,” Flier wrote. “A voucher is a “document issued … to a family selected for admission to the voucher program.”

She continued, “We do not mean to say that funds paid by (Santa Monica) to the owner of a rental unit is not income.

Such funds are clearly someone’s income. This case revolves around the question whether these payments are the tenant’s income.”

Denise McGranahan, an attorney for Sabi from the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles, declined to discuss the decision in-depth. “We disagree with the decision, of course,” she said. “It is devastating for tenants.

We are reviewing our options and have not yet decided what we are going to do.” Craig Mordoh, who filed an amicus brief for the case in support of Sterling on behalf of the California Apartment Law Information Foundation, said “Denise overstates these things.”

“The case will hopefully end a lot of this litigation because it just recognizes what existing law is, and that is that refusal to participate in Section 8 is not discrimination,” Mordoh said.

He called Section 8 a program with “administrative costs and burdens.” It forces the landlord to do extra paperwork and meet requirements, including those related to maintenance and upkeep. “You are entering into a contract with a local agency on behalf of the federal government that becomes very difficult to break,” Mordoh said.

He added, “The truth of the matter is if the local housing authorities would make the program less burdensome on owners, it would be more attractive to owners and more tenants would benefit. But the more local agencies and Cities make it difficult to operate under Section 8, you have to have agencies like Legal Aid to compel owners to participate in a program that should be voluntary”

Mordoh said he expects Sabi’s attorneys to petition the state Supreme Court to hear the case. As to whether it will hear it, Mordoh said, “The decision is pretty well-written and the state Supreme Court may not feel the need to take it up.”

"A voucher is not income and it is not 'paid' to anyone. A voucher is a "document issued . to a family selected for admission to the voucher program."
     AssociateJustice     Madeleine Flier