Byrd v. Fat City Condominium Owners Association, Inc.

Parties Involved

  • Plaintiff(s): Teywonia Byrd
    • Counsel for Plaintiff: Bryan M. Sumner| James Edward Hairston , Jr.

 

  • Defendant(s):Fat City Condominium Owners Association, Inc.
    • Counsel for Defendants: Michelle Massingale Dressler| Brett E. Dressler

Verdict Information

  • Verdict Date: June 20, 2024
  • Total Damages awarded to Plaintiff: $0

About the Case

Cause

Teywonia Byrd, an African-American female resident of Charlotte, North Carolina, filed a lawsuit against Fat City Condominium Owners Association, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. The complaint alleged multiple instances of racial discrimination and other misconduct by the association.

Byrd claimed that upon moving into Fat City condominiums in June 2020, she experienced discriminatory treatment. She alleged that the association selectively enforced condominium rules against her based on her race while ignoring similar violations by white residents. Specifically, Byrd stated she was forced to submit an Architectural Review Committee (ARC) form for installing a small Ring peephole camera, which the association subsequently denied. Meanwhile, she observed other residents making unapproved modifications to their units without consequence.

The lawsuit detailed Byrd’s concerns about resident safety, particularly regarding non-functioning security cameras. Byrd claimed she had previously experienced a traumatic incident with a former resident, but due to the lack of working cameras, she was unable to provide evidence to support criminal charges. Despite her repeated requests, the association allegedly failed to address the camera issues promptly.

Byrd also accused the association of allowing harassment by other residents. She claimed that after voicing her concerns about rule violations and illegal use of handicap parking spaces, she was subjected to public humiliation at association meetings and ongoing harassment by fellow residents. The complaint mentioned an incident where Byrd received an offensive package in the mail, which the association allegedly failed to address adequately.

Furthermore, Byrd accused a board member, Manny Ndingwan, of sexual harassment, claiming he propositioned her inappropriately. She alleged that her refusal led to further adverse treatment by the board.

Injury

Teywonia Byrd suffered multiple injuries as a result of the alleged discriminatory actions by Fat City Condominium Owners Association. She experienced severe emotional distress that required medical treatment and led to a diagnosis of acute anxiety, for which she needed prescribed medication. The ongoing harassment and discrimination forced Byrd to temporarily relocate from her purchased home to a safer community, causing financial and personal disruption. She endured public humiliation at association meetings and continued harassment from other residents, which negatively impacted her mental well-being and sense of safety in her own home. Byrd also faced financial penalties and the denial of her right to install a security camera for her protection, while witnessing selective enforcement of rules that favored non-minority residents. The association’s failure to address her safety concerns, particularly regarding non-functioning security cameras, left her vulnerable and unable to pursue charges against a former resident who had allegedly attacked her. These compounded injuries resulted in significant emotional, financial, and quality-of-life damages for Byrd.

Damages

Byrd sought damages in excess of $25,000 for each count, as well as attorney’s fees and injunctive relief.

Jury Verdict

The jury determined that the plaintiff’s race was not a determinative factor in the defendant’s decision to issue a violation notice or to fine the plaintiff for violating the Declaration. However, on the fourth issue, the jury found that the plaintiff did breach the Declaration by failing to remove the Ring peephole camera after the ARC application was denied. Finally, the jury concluded that the defendant followed the North Carolina Condominium Act when it assessed fines against the plaintiff of $100 per day since the first violation date, amounting to a total fine of $73,000.

Court Documents:

Available upon Request