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
True. In most states if you sell too many homes, you have to be licensed and become a member of NAR. They're constantly trying to shut down FSBO websites and service companies. It's a racket not unlike the lawyer's 'union'.
He's the one who suffered from the illegal rule.
When you say 'he' do you mean the black couple? How did they suffer? And why should the owner of the property they allege was for sale have to pay for his desire to not violate a convent, as repulsive as it may be to us?
"He" in the "archaic" English sense.
He suffered in not being permitted to come in consideration as a buyer. The owner was in absolutely no obligation to obey an illegal covenant, and in fact was in obligation to ignore it. (or as you put it "convent")
Well, it's not an illegal covenant. It's simply unenforceable by a court. There is a difference.
Nope, it would be found in violation of civil rights in case law set by the USSC and followed by legislation in every state. That's illegal, unless you want another revolution.
I guess you've overlooked the impairment of contracts prohibition in the US Constitution and the holding in Shelly v Kramer. That's OK doc. Just don't try this at home.
I she related to Ana Ayala from Las Vegas?
Does Shelly v. Kramer somehow justify the following of an unenforceable covenant that discriminates against race?
The court in Shelly v Kramer was faced with the same dilemma and chose not to enforce it, claiming to do so would amount to state sanctioned discrimination in violation of the 14th amendment. However, it did not invalidate the covenant. I suspect that wise counsel for the defendant in this action would raise the impairment of contracts issue and again neutralize the court.
But it remains, that calling on a court to enforce that provision in the contract would be impossible. So the defendant must sell to the plaintiff under the same conditions he would sell to anybody else. There are state laws about this kind of thing now.
But you see the rub? For a court to order the sale, or for a state or federal law to prohibit that convenant from being enforced (or punishing him for following it)(when it was legal when it was created) puts the state in the position of violating the impairment of contracts provision of the constitution.
The IOC applies to the FEDERAL government. Not the state.
Neurosurgeons and lawyers are highly educated professionals. Realtors are house salesman, like any salesman. They have no unique knowledge, aptitudes, or skills, beyond salesmanship. Whereas a lawyer knows a lot about the law, and a neurosurgeon knows a fair amount about medicine and neuroanatomy, a Realtor has no more knowledge about a house than you or I could learn in a weekend (if we don't already know). They do have buddies in the appraiser's office, but we could buy that friendship, too.
An amazingly wrong statement. In just about every situation, the federal constitution applies to the states as well. In fact, this very point has been litigated in Virginia, the site of this dispute:
"Addressing the interrelationships between the impairment of contracts and the police power of a state, the Supreme Court has ruled as follows: "The contract clauses of the Federal Constitution and the Virginia Bill of Rights protect against the same fundamental invasion of rights." 1 A. Howard, Commentaries on the Constitution of Virginia 203 (1974). The General Assembly "shall not pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts." Va. Const. art. I, § 11. See U.S. Const. art I, § 10 ("No State shall . . . pass any . . . Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts.") The Virginia contract clause has been interpreted by this Court in a manner similar to the treatment of the federal clause by the United States Supreme Court. A. Howard at 207."
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:pBjzDo4kq7MJ:www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opncavwp/2596991.doc+virginia+impairment+of+contracts&hl=en
Obviously you are making some kind of joke here. But I don't get your humor. Please enlighten me.
Your argument seems a non sequitur. The Constitution of Virginia contains a non-IOC clause similar to the Federal one, and that is what your cases talk about. drlevy would be incorrect, but for the wrong reason.
I didn't know the National Association of Realtors union were constantly trying to close down For Sale By Owner (FSBO) websites. But it is without a doubt quite believable. You are quite right, they are a "racket not unlike the lawyer's 'union'." Though I will concede that I exaggerated a bit in calling enemy number one.
So because someone somewhere, somewhen, who was not white got a raw deal, it is okay for a nonwhite couple to use the courts to sieze this old white man's home so they can have a rental property?
Uh huh. I see where you are coming from.
Did you ever consider that rights aren't rights unless they apply to everyone? That tipping the scales the other way will only ensure there is yet another generation seeking 'paybacks' at some level.
If you want racial equality, then by all means, let's have it.
If you are claiming it is fair to take retribution against an individual over ills perpetrated by others of the same race in the past, you might want to rethink this whole conservative thing.
When this is done, I can guarantee you there will be at least two black people that that old man will feel fully justified in hating.
Whether he will limit his vitriol to those individuals or make generalizations is up to him, but those who are the type to generalize will use his case as an object one to support their beliefs, however wrong or twisted those generalized beliefs might be.
The net effect will only propagate racism, not eliminate it.
IMHO, the motivation here has little to do with racial equality, but instead is simple greed. Free house, and the money to pay for the abstract, deed transfer, and the lawyer.
By their fruits shall ye know them.
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.