SACRAMENTO, Calif. — When Anita Brazil’s 20-year-old son arrived at her doorstep in late December in the midst of what she describes as a severe psychiatric collapse, she says she did what any mother would do: she brought him inside.
Instead, Brazil alleges, her effort to temporarily house and stabilize her adult son triggered a three-month campaign of discrimination, retaliation and harassment by her landlord that ultimately forced her family from their Sacramento home.
Now, the first-year Master of Science in Law student at McGeorge School of Law has filed a fair housing complaint with the California Civil Rights Department, arguing that California’s protections for tenants with disabilities often mean little if families cannot find attorneys willing to pursue such cases.
At the center of the dispute is Othman, Brazil’s adult son, who has schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.
“My 20-year-old son was diagnosed with schizophrenia and bipolar when he was 16,” Brazil said. “He was delivered at my porch step in late December around my birthday, December 30th, 50 pounds underweight, highly symptomatic, unmedicated, just having hallucinations, just more or less an empty vessel. My son wasn’t recognizable.”
Brazil said Othman had been living with his biological father before arriving unexpectedly at her home during an acute psychiatric crisis.
“So he was in a psychiatric collapse crisis and we were scrambling, my husband and I, what to do, what do we do?” she said. “How can we help him?”
At the time, Brazil said she was working full time, attending graduate school and helping raise her 13-year-old son.
“My husband has to show up for work. My son has to go to school and then we have this sick young man who doesn’t even really know his name,” Brazil said. “He has all these voices in his head.”
The family began contacting service providers, arranging Medi-Cal coverage and seeking placement through Sacramento County’s Full Service Partnership program.
“We prioritized him and then we notified the landlord,” Brazil said. “I said, ‘We have a situation and I just wanted to let you know being transparent, I want to request a temporary accommodation for my son until we figure out his housing, his care.'”
According to Brazil, that conversation marked the beginning of the conflict.
“And that’s when the disability or the discrimination started happening,” she said. “Immediately he’s like, ‘Well, I never wanted more than four people in the house and now you have your husband there and now your son.'”
Brazil alleges the landlord proposed escalating monthly charges tied directly to Othman’s continued presence in the home.
The June 5 press release states the landlord sought an additional $350 monthly beginning in April, increasing by $100 each month to a maximum of $750, amounting to a 34.9% rent increase. Brazil argues the increase exceeded limits established under California law.
“He wanted extra money,” Brazil said. “This is what he proposed.”
According to Brazil, the landlord explicitly referenced concerns about accommodating disabilities.
“He told me, ‘If you would have came to me sooner, we could have put him on the lease, but then I don’t want to put him on the lease because with disabilities it requires me to provide notices to renters and I don’t want to go down that road. It’s not something I really want to do,'” Brazil said. “‘I don’t want to deal with anyone with disabilities.'”
Brazil said she repeatedly tried to find common ground.
“I asked him, ‘Well, what is your methodology behind charging me this escalating rent increase? Can we talk about this so no one’s housing is at risk because my son doesn’t have income, he doesn’t have any money. We’re asking for a temporary accommodation because we can’t afford to get him his own place and he needs his family. He needs a safe place to be,'” she said.
Instead, she said, she was presented with an ultimatum.
“He said, ‘I’m not under no obligation to tell you my calculations and my thoughts. Either one or two things will happen on April 1st. Either you pay the additional money or you give me your 30 day notice with your intentions to move out,'” Brazil said.
Brazil refused to choose between her son’s welfare and the family’s housing stability.
“I’m going to pay you the 350 under protest because I’m not choosing between my son or my housing,” she said. “We choose both and we’ll figure it out from here.”
According to Brazil, the landlord responded by serving a 60-day notice terminating the tenancy.
“Well, he didn’t like that,” she said. “And then he gave me a 60 day notice, ‘You know what? This is not going to work out. I want you to leave.'”
Brazil filed a complaint with the California Civil Rights Department on April 19. An intake appointment was scheduled for June 16.
The family ultimately vacated the property May 31, the final day of Mental Health Awareness Month.
According to Brazil’s press release, the move disrupted her younger son’s school year and cost the family approximately $6,000 in unexpected expenses while both adults maintained full-time employment and Brazil attended law school.
Brazil said the ordeal exposed the limits of legal protections.
“I had another attorney firm saying, ‘Your case has merit, but we can’t take this case at this time because there’s not enough skin in the game,'” she said. “And the only way to bring a landlord like him to justice is to take him to court to sue because it’s a civil matter, yet all these laws exist.”
“It is,” she said when asked whether the gap between legal rights and enforcement seemed absurd. “And that is what I find so … That’s why I can’t stop. I need to figure this out.”
Brazil said the emotional toll of recounting the experience remains significant.
“At the end of the call, I started to get kind of emotional because I felt like I was in it again,” she said of the CRD intake process. “I was in the trauma. I was in the crisis again.”
She nevertheless believes speaking publicly is necessary.
“The last thing I want is for another mother and hopefully he doesn’t rent to another mother so she doesn’t have to experience this,” Brazil said. “Mothers have children and children grow up and they don’t stop being your child or your calling your responsibility when they hit 20 years old or they hit 25 or 30.”
Throughout the interview, Brazil returned repeatedly to one question.
“Am I going to put him on the street?” she said. “We were asking for the landlord to have some compassion.”
Months later, she says her son’s condition has improved.
“It taken six months to get him stable, to get him to even have a conversation with me where he recognizes me again and I recognize him,” Brazil said. “It’s a huge success so proud.”
In her press release, Brazil said the case is about more than her own family.
“I disclosed my son’s disability on March 6 and the discrimination began the same day,” she said. “What this landlord did was use the language of inclusion as a marketing tool while practicing exclusion as a management strategy.”
“My foundation is that rock bottom is bedrock, not an ending,” she added. “I lived in my car for nine months before I built the life I have now. I know what it costs when systems fail vulnerable families. I am telling this story publicly because the next family this landlord rents to deserves to know what twenty-three months of his corporate-signed correspondence actually looks like, and because the people who treat the dignity of disabled tenants as optional should not be able to count on the people they harm being too tired to tell.”
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
I don’t believe that a landlord is obligated to agree to a modification of a lease to include another adult in the household – even one with disabilities. And apparently, all adults living in a household are supposed to be listed on a lease (and are both jointly and individually responsible for the terms of the lease).
A quick Internet search seems to show that there may be an exception if the adult moving in is a caregiver for those already living in the household.
Seems like there is no exception if the adult is related to those living in the household.
So if all of what I just noted is correct, this sounds more like “much ado about nothing” (but an unfortunate situation, nonetheless).
And if what I just noted is correct, a “first year law student” (as referenced in the article) should already know this (and/or, able to find out pretty quickly).
And yet, they apparently filed a complaint anyway.
And some tenants then wonder why it’s sometimes difficult and costly to find a place to live.
the lawyers she talked to have a very different take on the legality of the landlord’s actions
We don’t know what the lawyers said, in regard to what I noted above.
This sounds like a possible “Mom and Pop” landlord, so it’s certainly possible that they didn’t do everything “perfectly”.
Did the lawyers state that what I noted above is “wrong”? It seems pretty black-and-white (not much room for “interpretation”).
In any case, I wouldn’t be surprised if the house isn’t on the rental market at all in the future. Or, they’re very careful about who they rent to, next time.
I wonder if future landlords can find out that this tenant launched a complaint?
It is always best to leave the legal analysis to attorneys.
Though in looking at it again (without any more information from you), it appears that the landlord might have accepted a new lease (and accepted $350).
Regarding the escalating rent beyond that, I don’t believe there’s any limit if this is a single-family house.
Seems like the landlord would have been better off evicting the tenants when he found out that they were (apparently) violating the lease by having another adult living in the unit.
Tried to add (but couldn’t due to a technical problem):
Or, they could have come to some mutual agreement to modify or end the lease.
But once the new lease starts, both sides are generally stuck with it. I don’t think the landlord can suddenly then say, “this isn’t working out for me” (assuming that’s what actually happened).
We also don’t know what was actually said/communicated between the two parties involved. But if there’s a (new) written lease (necessitated by the tenant’s actions in this case), that’s what has to be abided by.
We don’t even know if the “sob story” is entirely accurate. (Seems like a high percentage of Vanguard articles consist primarily of sob stories.)
Perhaps these are additional reasons that it’s better to just move on – for both sides.
And for good reason. She has a great case.
“It is always best to leave the legal analysis to attorneys.”
Are you the attorney in this case?
https://davisvanguard.org/2026/06/hud-veterans-housing-risk/
So, that would be a “no”, based on that reference.