Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

'Whites Only' Deed Sparks Lawsuit
cbsnews ^ | 4 22 05 | Dionne Walker

Posted on 04/22/2005 10:54:48 PM PDT by freepatriot32

The modest brick house, with its yard full of wilting tulips and rusted old cars, isn't a candidate for the pages of Better Homes and Gardens.

But on a spring day in 2002, it was just what Nealie Pitts had in mind. She approached the owner, Rufus T. Matthews, and asked the price.

According to court documents, Matthews said the house was selling for $83,000 - but that a deed restriction meant only whites were eligible to buy it.

"I was hurt and angry, like he had slapped me in the face," Pitts, who is black, said in an e-mail.

Nearly three years later, the Virginia Office of the Attorney General said it will soon take Matthews to court for the alleged fair housing law violation.

It's a bittersweet victory for fair housing proponents, who wonder how many other people are turned away by racially restrictive deed covenants.

"We very rarely encounter anybody who believes they can be enforced," said Connie Chamberlin, president of Housing Opportunities Made Equal (HOME). "We are aware they're certainly out there."

In milder forms, covenants can be used to control things like the color homeowners can paint their houses.

But in the Jim Crow South, they were often used to keep neighborhoods white. Racially restrictive covenants were ruled illegal by the Supreme Court in 1948.

"Many people don't even know they're in their deeds," Chamberlin said, adding would-be homebuyers can ask to have the racist language removed. "That can't be used as a reason to stop a sale."

According to court documents, Matthews told Pitts his house in suburban Richmond was "not for colored. We decided we are going to keep this area right here all white."

The next day she contacted HOME, which sent out a black test buyer.

"Precisely the same thing happened," Chamberlin said. "We have it on tape."

On Thursday, Matthews told The Associated Press that he would sell his home only to a white buyer. But he denied the house was for sale, saying a sale sign he had was for items in his yard. "The house has never been for sale," he said.

Matthews is accused of violating the Virginia Fair Housing Law. The same code says officials can attempt an out-of-court settlement in cases where the law has been violated.

At an April 13 meeting, the Virginia Fair Housing Board rejected a settlement offer. Board Chairman David Rubinstein declined to detail why it refused the proposal from the attorney general's office.

But Thomas Wolf, an attorney representing Pitts, said the offer would have required Matthews take two hours of class on fair housing law, at taxpayer expense.

"That is not a serious settlement proposal given the facts of the case," Wolf said. "Were they planning to pass out Happy Meals with little Confederate flags?"

Emily Lucier, a spokeswoman for Attorney General Judith Williams Jagdmann, could not explain how the proposal was formulated, but said settlement is not unheard of in discrimination cases.

Pitts is seeking $100,000 in damages in a separate case against Matthews. Lucier said because Pitts has gotten her own lawyer, the office cannot legally seek monetary damages in the civil matter.

Instead, she said, the office will continue pressing for injunctive relief and education. A court date has not been set


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Extended News; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy; US: Virginia
KEYWORDS: afrocentricity; attorneygeneral; constitutionlist; culturewar; deed; dixie; dixielist; fakehatecrimes; govwatch; housing; kkk; lawnhockies; lawsuit; libertarians; only; porchswingers; propertyrights; skinhead; sparks; virginia; whites
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 241-260 next last
To: Alter Kaker

Liberty is liberty. Government should never discriminate between one citizen and another, but a private citizen, especially on his own property has a right to be a bigot if he wishes.

It's been a while since I took my real estate licence classes and I don't know about the Virginia law, but I do not believe he is in violation of the federal statute. No real estate agent would work with him, but if he sells it himself, he can do what he wants.


141 posted on 04/23/2005 2:57:30 PM PDT by Da Bilge Troll (Defeatism is not a winning strategy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker
Friends, we do have ourselves an unreconstructed segregationist here.

Thanks for the complement that I'm "unreconstructed," even though you are wrong about me being a segregationist.

142 posted on 04/23/2005 3:07:26 PM PDT by jackbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: Dustbunny; staytrue
Stating that your house in the middle of 26 acres, that only a mental hospital can open a halfway house for the insane, that pot is a controlled substance, and that the mineral rights were already sold or given away, is a cop out to the questions raised. Three out of those four could in theory change with out any decision on your part. If we bring in the current use of Imminent Domain into the discussion, all four could change. You did not answer the question that was raised.
143 posted on 04/23/2005 3:12:12 PM PDT by jackbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: OKIEDOC
However, you evidently approve and think discrimination is OK as long as it's against whites.

We do not live in a perfect world. There is discrimination against whites and against blacks, hispanics and asians. But in reality, the discrimination that each group faces is currently relatively minimal and not much worth argueing about or complaining about. No one is being enslaved, or sent to internment camps or segregated by force.

For most people, discrimination is now a minor nuisance for everyone. For example, if every white guy who said what this guy said lost his house, how bad would that be ? Answer is not all that bad. Ditto for the racial slights that the minorities and women get.

I say that people who are complaining are mostly complaining about relatively insignificant things and that includes the people defending this guy, while if he were a minority, he would be getting nominated for a Darwin award.

144 posted on 04/23/2005 3:16:55 PM PDT by staytrue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar; Alter Kaker
No doubt about it, a whites only public or commercial restaurant, swimming pool, or movie theater is a violation of the law. Reading the various constitutional threads, I think I'm one of the few people here at FR who does not believe the 1964 civil rights act was unconstitutional and generally support it in our current situation. But the legality of whites only businesses was not the question raised. The question was, should they be allowed. And to that I said "yes." You went on to say:

The only way you can limit access is to make it a private (ie: members only) club.

First of let me say that a number of private clubs have been forcibly integrated by the courts. Gender and not race has been the main cause for such actions. But more importantly here, is the idea that private clubs is the "only way." Imagine if some one had said that due to the Jim Crow laws, the only way to have integrated access to a restaurant, swimming pool, or movie theater was to make private (i.e. members only) clubs. Obviously you are not correct on this one, as we now have integrated them with out resorting to such clubs as the means.

So also the opposite could occur.

145 posted on 04/23/2005 3:22:23 PM PDT by jackbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: jackbob

It was not a cop out, it was in answer to the STUPID statements he made. I still say that when you buy a piece of property and pay for it with your own money, you have a right to chose to whom it is sold to. Logically I would not expect the person that buys it to put up a 400' high fence, open a half way house for the insane, start a pot farm or any of the other statements he made. I was talking about selling it to a family and you have the right to chose which family to sell it to.


146 posted on 04/23/2005 3:24:33 PM PDT by Dustbunny (The only good terrorist is a dead terrorist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: .45MAN
there are a lot of people here that keep the white sheet just behind the front door

Our country is currently pretty much free of major racism like lynchings and gas chambers and concentration camps and slavery.

The "racists" of today are small time racists and certainly no where near KKK or Nazis or anything else. No one, black, white, or other has very much to complain about in the US today. There is some racism, but it is ineffective at harming the other race and pretty minimal. A little racism is no big deal.

147 posted on 04/23/2005 3:26:12 PM PDT by staytrue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: jackbob

Plus, I don't care if the people buying it are black, brown, pink, yellow, red, purple or green with orange stripes. He still has the right to chose to whom he sells it.


148 posted on 04/23/2005 3:27:01 PM PDT by Dustbunny (The only good terrorist is a dead terrorist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: ThisLittleLightofMine
My point is simply that if a man wants to sell his home he should be able to sell it to who he wants to sell it to.

No one says in the context of this thread that a man can not sell his home to who ever he wants to. Rufus was not told that he could not sell his home to who ever he wanted to. That has not been the issue. The issue has to do with him presenting his home for sale on the open market. That is he used view from a public street to advertise and invite the public to purchase his home, and then when potential buyer expended effort to make the purchase, he denied them due to their race. Any just society would afford the denied some amount of restitution.

149 posted on 04/23/2005 3:28:49 PM PDT by jackbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: jackbob
a number of private clubs have been forcibly integrated by the courts.

The "private clubs" that were forcibly integrated were done on the grounds that they were "private" in name only. There still are a number of "no blacks" private golf courses in the US. If you claim the "private club" exemption, you really need to closer to "private" than "public".

150 posted on 04/23/2005 3:29:55 PM PDT by staytrue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: staytrue
Most people should use a _competent_ realtor.

For some reason that profession attracts a significant number of idiots and con artists. Unfortunately they are not kind enough to mention that on their business cards. :-)
151 posted on 04/23/2005 3:35:35 PM PDT by cgbg (Fire the Trustees of the Social Security Trust Fund with no money in it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Dustbunny; staytrue
Plus, I don't care if the people buying it are black, brown, pink, yellow, red, purple or green with orange stripes. He still has the right to chose to whom he sells it.

This above reply #148 to my reply #143 to you, has nothing to do with the discussion. That discussion grew out of the idea of a neighbor building a high wall blocking out the sun, etc. Racial discrimination in the sale of a homes was not in dispute there. Quite possibly you meant your reply to another of my replies. At any rate, you did not answer staytrue's #117 question in your reply #131, as I pointed out in my reply #143.

152 posted on 04/23/2005 3:43:47 PM PDT by jackbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: jackbob
Rufus was not told that he could not sell his home to who ever he wanted to. That has not been the issue.

That reminds me of an article I read several years ago. An old lady wanted to hire a Christian, live-in handyman and so she ran an ad in the paper to that effect. She got busted big-time by the local city EEOC and had to pay a $5,000 fine.

Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

153 posted on 04/23/2005 3:48:02 PM PDT by Dan Evans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: staytrue
The "private clubs" that were forcibly integrated were done on the grounds that they were "private" in name only.

You are quite right here. I did not think it necessary to make that distinction, as it was not the main point I was arguing. But staying with that point, the forced integration of private clubs was a very short lived controversy as I recall it. The establishment forces quickly backed off on pursuing such cases by government action, as there was a strong backlash to such actions. Civil rights groups then focused on using social pressure, and did so quite successfully for the most part. At least that is how I recall it.

154 posted on 04/23/2005 4:00:51 PM PDT by jackbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: Hildy
I can't believe you guys are taking his side.

Me either (she says sarcastically)

155 posted on 04/23/2005 4:04:20 PM PDT by Neets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Dan Evans
Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Of course I view the loss to the woman as being far greater than the current troubles inflicted upon Rufus. First off, she stated up front what she wanted, bringing no harm to anyone. Where as Rufus did do harm, and should have to pay $5,000 +/- $4,500 or so. But $100,000 is outrageous, and amounts to nothing more than criminal plunder. Even suing him for that amount is evidence of legal extortion in my opinion. And on that basis, I say he should get off the hook entirely.

156 posted on 04/23/2005 4:14:41 PM PDT by jackbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: jackbob
Isn't Augusta National still a men's only golf course? They take a lot of heat, but I admire them for not caving in to the pressure. It is insulting that white males are the only people who have to put up with this nonsense.

Maybe we should work harder at being outraged.

Altogether now, guys, accent on the second syllable:

I'm ofFENded!

ofFENded!

157 posted on 04/23/2005 4:21:01 PM PDT by Dan Evans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: jackbob
Reading the various constitutional threads, I think I'm one of the few people here at FR who does not believe the 1964 civil rights act was unconstitutional and generally support it in our current situation.

IIRC, SCOTUS ruled the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to be Constitutional. If that's the case, then it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks.

158 posted on 04/23/2005 4:28:49 PM PDT by EveningStar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: Dan Evans
Agree... and so am I.

Most ofFENded - jack

159 posted on 04/23/2005 4:31:38 PM PDT by jackbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

Comment #160 Removed by Moderator


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 241-260 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson