Hot Springs, Ark. — A jury in Garland County has rendered a mixed decision in a civil lawsuit against Greenbrier Holdings Partnership, a landlord linked to a local apartment complex. Following three days of testimony and years of legal preparation, the jury found that the company had breached lease agreements and failed to maintain livable conditions for tenants.
The case arose from allegations brought forward by six former residents of the Greenbrier Apartments, who accused the landlord of misleading both tenants and government authorities, along with violating various housing laws on both state and federal levels. These allegations spanned issues related to discrimination and unfit living spaces.
On the final day of the trial, Judge Ralph Ohm provided jurors with instructions, asking them to adjudicate several key points. They were to determine whether Greenbrier Holdings violated lease contracts, if compensatory and punitive damages should be awarded, and whether the company engaged in fraud, racial or disability discrimination, or contravened the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
Two plaintiffs — Keishon Hicks and Yolanda Muldrow — submitted separate claims regarding alleged discrimination. During closing statements, the plaintiffs’ attorney emphasized the importance of holding landlords accountable, arguing that Greenbrier Holdings accepted federal Housing and Urban Development (HUD) funds while failing to uphold safe housing standards.
The plaintiffs contended that Greenbrier misled tenants regarding air-conditioning charges, suggesting that although HUD had approved a fee, residents were already paying for the service within their rent. The attorney described the tenants as vulnerable individuals exploited by a system designed to protect them, citing poor living conditions characterized by mold and pest infestations.
Claims articulated under the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act accused Greenbrier of knowingly leasing substandard apartments. Hicks alleged he faced racial discrimination from company representatives, while Muldrow claimed her requests for accommodation due to a disability were disregarded when she could not afford additional air-conditioning costs.
The plaintiffs sought monetary damages for emotional distress, relocation expenses, and health-related consequences. In their defense, attorney Ethan Nobles asserted that there was insufficient evidence to substantiate the claims, maintaining that HUD had sanctioned the air-conditioning fees and that rental adjustments were lawful.
Nobles argued that the case centered primarily on disagreement over fees, dismissing the allegations of fraud and discrimination. Following deliberation, the jury ultimately concluded that Greenbrier Holdings had breached its contractual obligations but found insufficient evidence for claims of fraud or discrimination, leading to no punitive damages being awarded.
Each of the six plaintiffs received monetary compensation ranging from $1,500 to $2,800, totaling just over $10,000. Although the jury sided with the plaintiffs on the breach of contract claims, all fraud and deceptive trade allegations were dismissed by a 10-2 vote.
Despite the outcome, Andrea Hudson, the attorney for the plaintiffs, expressed disappointment, suggesting the evidence warranted a more severe consequence. In contrast, Nobles described the verdict as a partial success, noting that Cotroneo was vindicated.
Hicks shared his ambivalence about the jury’s decision, reflecting on what he felt could have been a more equitable outcome. He emphasized the need for improvements in diversity and fairness within the judicial system.
Both parties indicated their intention to appeal. Judge Ohm acknowledged the complexities of the case and praised the legal teams for their efforts throughout the trial.
This article was automatically written by Open AI, and the people, facts, circumstances, and story may be inaccurate. Any article can be requested for removal, retraction, or correction by writing an email to contact@publiclawlibrary.org.