GROVE v. STECHER, 47387-5-I (Wash.App. 5-13-2002)

No. 47387-5-IThe Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One.
Filed: May 13, 2002 UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Appeal from Superior Court of King County, No. 99-2-25975-1, Hon. Richard Eadie, April 12, 2000, Judgment or order under review.

Counsel for Appellant(s), Marlene Kaplan, Attorney At Law, 5745 Wilson Ave S, Seattle, WA 98118.

Counsel for Respondent(s), Robert Kuvara, Attorney At Law, 1316 Central Ave S. #200, Kent, WA 98032-7431.

PER CURIAM.

The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA)[1] does not apply to residential facilities because they are not places of public accommodation. The trial court therefore erred by ordering discovery and a new trial on whether the Walnut Grove Mobile Home Park violated the ADA by failing to reasonably accommodate one of its residents.

Walnut Grove operates an adult mobile home park whose residents must be 55 or older. David Stecher is younger than 55. His mother is some 80 years old and a resident of Walnut Grove. After his father died, Stecher stayed with his mother to care for her. Walnut Grove sought to remove him from the park and filed an unlawful detainer action.

Stecher claimed an exemption as a live-in home health care provider under RCW 59.20.145. After trial, the court found that he did not qualify. But, sua sponte, the court concluded that the ADA applied, and that the park had not made a reasonable accommodation. The court therefore refused to grant the writ. Walnut Grove moved for reconsideration, arguing that the ADA did not apply as a matter of law, and that in any event, neither party had raised the ADA. To allow Walnut Grove an additional opportunity for ADA-related discovery, the court granted a new trial. A commissioner of this court ruled that Walnut Grove was entitled to appeal as a matter of right. Walnut Grove asserts that the trial court had no authority to order additional briefing or a new trial. But Walnut Grove offers no citation to case law or court rules to support its position. “We need not consider arguments for which a party has cited no authority.” Fischer-McReynolds v. Quasim, 101 Wn. App. 801, 814, 6 P.3d 30 (2000) (citing State v. Dennison, 115 Wn.2d 609, 629, 801 P.2d 193 (1990)). Assuming the trial court had the authority to order briefing and a new trial on the issue of Walnut Grove’s compliance with the ADA, the decision to do so was nevertheless error. Residential facilities such as Walnut Grove’s mobile home park are not places of public accommodation under the ADA. See Indep. Hous. Serv. of San Francisco v. Fillmore Ctr. Assoc. DMJM, 840 F. Supp. 1328, 1344 n. 14 (N.D.Cal. 1993).[2] The trial court therefore erred by granting a new trial on whether the Walnut Grove Mobile Home Park violated the ADA.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.