Recent Court Rulings

Facts: The water pipe serving an owner’s condominium unit was constructed in such a way that it ran through a portion of the ceiling of an adjacent unit prior to entering the owner’s unit. The adjacent unit underwent foreclosure. Subsequently, the utilities in the foreclosed unit were disconnected. Over the course of two years, the portion of the water pipe running through the foreclosed unit froze, broke, and caused damages. The unit owner had the subject water pipe and the damages repaired.

Facts: The board of directors of a condominium association wanted to effectively rewrite its declaration, originally drafted in 1983, because the original document was so outdated that the board felt it was necessary to start over from the beginning. After the declaration had been amended, two condominium members sued the association. The members argued that they hadn’t been given proper notice of the meeting where the proposed amendment would be discussed with members.

Facts: An association notified some of its members who were renting their units to vacationers that this was in breach of the restrictive covenants because they were essentially running a business out of their units. The members refused to stop renting their units. The association sued the renters. A Florida trial court ruled in favor of the members. The association appealed.

Decision: The appeals court upheld the trial court’s decision.

FACTS: A couple filed a fair housing case, alleging discrimination based on familial status at the condominium community where they lived with their two minor children. The couple claimed that the condo association and its management company created an “atmosphere of hostility” against families with children.

Facts: A homeowner in a planned community that was situated on a lake witnessed an employee of the community’s hired landscaping company spraying fumes without wearing protective clothing or a face mask. The homeowner complained to the association and also made a report to the state’s department of agriculture, regarding “an environmental and public health incident.” According to the homeowner, the board of directors and management staff had willfully failed to take any safety precaution to prevent this incident.

Facts: Two homeowners with a townhouse in a planned complex sued the association for making alterations to and performing work on a protective berm located in the complex’s common area near their lot. They alleged that the alterations to the berm resulted in a loss of seclusion and privacy for their lot, thus lowering its value. The homeowners asserted six causes of action for: breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, intentional damage of property, negligence, trespass pursuant to state law, and an accounting.

Facts: A woman moved into a condominium with her mother, who was handicapped, to help with her daily activities. The woman asked the condominium association to provide an unobstructed path between the member’s front door and driveway.

Facts: The owner of property in a planned community sued the homeowners association under Oregon’s timber trespass statute, after several trees were cut down and removed from his land without his permission. The association claimed that an adjacent golf club with an easement on the owner’s land had removed the trees. A trial court determined that the association was responsible, it ruled in favor of the owner, and it tripled the damages award that the association had to pay, which was allowed for violations of the statute.

Facts: An association member complained to the community’s management company on three separate occasions that an unauthorized car was parked in his assigned parking space at the property. The manager told the member to call a towing company, but when the member contacted the company, he was told that an “authorized” representative of the community would have to request that the car be towed. However, the manager refused to call the towing company on the member’s behalf.

Facts: A condominium member suffered injuries after slipping on the sidewalk outside her building. She sued the association and the association’s management company for negligence, alleging that a defective drainage condition and negligent maintenance of the premises where the defective drain led to pooling of water and an unnatural accumulation of ice caused her fall. The trial court ruled in favor of the association and the management company; it said that the Illinois state’s Snow and Ice Removal Act provided immunity to the defendants.