Recent Court Rulings

Facts: An association board had determined that it would be in the association's best interest to completely restate the association's covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CCandR) to bring the documents up to date with current law, delete obsolete developer references, and clarify ambiguous provisions that had caused confusion.

Facts: A condo association sought a court order requiring a member to give it access to her condominium to perform repair work on her balcony. The association was concerned with the structural integrity of the concrete balconies on each of its units. The member's balcony was inspected and was found to have suffered moderate corrosion requiring repair.

The trial court found that the association did not meet its burden of showing irreparable harm if the member continued to deny balcony access for repairs. The association appealed.

Facts: According to the records of the association, a member was behind in his assessments. In July 2007, the manager sent the member a “Notice of Intent to File Lien.” The notice included a statement of assessments owed to the association. The following month, the member demanded an explanation of the assessments and alleged that a portion of the assessments already had been paid. The manager then sent a “Notice of Lien,” which included a statement of assessments owed.

Facts: A member entered into a lease agreement for her condominium with an African-American woman. Shortly thereafter, the condominium members adopted amendments to the bylaws that included a restriction on members' ability to lease their property.

Facts: A condominium community is comprised of a six-story building with 96 units and a 43-story building with 520 units. There is a common garage connecting the two buildings, and they share common heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems.

Facts: A group of condominium members sued the board to prevent it from enforcing a rule it had passed regarding pets. The condominium's bylaws had indicated that members were permitted to walk with their pets over the condominium's common areas. However, in July 2008, the board passed a rule requiring members to curb their pets and prohibiting members from walking their pets on the common areas. Violators of the rule were subject to a $50 fine.

The trial court refused the association's request to dismiss the members' lawsuit. The association appealed.

Facts: While serving on the board, a member allegedly became aware of various improprieties and departures from association bylaws. The member alleged that board members discussed and voted on condominium business without giving proper notice to or opportunity for input from members and that management awarded contracts to relatives or entities owned by relatives without proper notification to the board.

Facts: An amendment passed by an association in 2007 modified a declaration and bylaws to grant the board the power to charge common expenses on a monthly and/or quarterly basis. The board had sent all members notice of the annual meeting and informed the members that voting would begin on that date on the amendment for quarterly assessments. The notice specified that voting would begin at the meeting and continue for 14 days afterward until a sufficient number of votes were collected to pass or defeat the proposed amendment.

Facts: Shortly before a member purchased his condominium, the association filed an amendment to the declaration with the county recorder's office. The amendment prohibited members from leasing their condominiums unless certain exceptions apply. The member applied for a hardship exception to the no-leasing rule, but the association denied his application.

Facts: A community suffered property damage to various common areas and homes after a ditch overflowed as a result of heavy rains. The association filed a complaint against the city, the company that developed the community, and the individual partners of the company.

Except for the company, everybody else named in the lawsuit answered the association's complaint and are actively defending the lawsuit. The association asked the court for a default judgment against the developer company in its favor for failing to defend the claims against it.