1. For purposes of receiving a reasonable accom
modation and/or an exemption, from a homeowners
association (HOA) mask mandate, may the HOA
require voluminous and intrusive disclosure of a
homeowner 's private/confidential medical records,
diagnosis, prognosis, treatment, take the deposition of
his medical doctor, all of which is well beyond what is
prescribed in the HOA 's mask rule, that of the
Executive Order of the Governor of the State of
Colorado, the requirements and safeguards provided
and afforded under the Fair Housing Act 42 U.S.C.
§ 3604 (FHA) together with the Joint Statement of the
Department of Housing and Urban Development and
the Department of Justice Reasonable Accommodations
under the Fair Housing Act?

2. Further, in the case at bar, the HOA 's affirm
ative claims were mooted by the trial court, should the
compulsory counterclaims also be mooted and dis
missed with the judgment vacated? Similar to the
issues in 23-621 Lackey v. Stinnie Whether a party
must obtain an enduring change in the parties ' legal
relationship from a judicial act, as opposed to a non
judicial event that moots the case, to prevail under 42
U.S.C. § 1988.

3. In the alternative, since Mr. Schwartz prevailed
upon all claims brought by the HOA affirmatively
against him, is he entitled to his reasonable attorney
fees and costs per the HOA 's Declarations, Colorado
Common Interest Ownership Act C.R.S. § 38-33.3-123,
and the Fair Housing Act 42 U.S. Code § 3613(l)(c)(2)
regardless of the outcome of his counterclaims? Also,
similar to the issues presented in 23-621 Lackey v.
Stinnie Mr. Schwartz is entitled to his reasonable
attorney fees and costs.

Whether an HOA may require intrusive medical record disclosure as a condition for a reasonable accommodation exemption from a mask mandate under the Fair Housing Act