Recent Court Rulings

Facts: A couple living in a planned townhouse community granted a limited power of attorney to their daughter to allow her to vote on their behalf at association meetings and to communicate with the association when necessary. The power of attorney essentially gave their daughter the same rights and privileges as if she owned their townhouse.

Facts: A corporation bought undeveloped land adjacent to two planned communities. The communities’ homeowners associations asserted that the company was required to allow members to continue using bike trails on the undeveloped land. The corporation argued that the associations had no claim to the bike trails and that members wouldn’t be allowed to use them. The associations sued the corporation, asking the trial court for a judgment in their favor without a trial. The trial court ruled against them, and they appealed.

Facts: A homeowner had leased her house in a community for 26 years until the association adopted an amendment to its restrictive covenants that prohibited the leasing of units by individual owners. However, the association reserved the right to lease vacant units to renters. The homeowner asked the association for a hardship exception because she was unable to live in her unit herself and needed the rental income it generated. The association denied the request.

Facts: A condominium was mostly residential, with two commercial units. One commercial unit was a parking garage owned by two brothers. A dispute arose over whether the condominium should install a backflow preventer valve in the garage. The New York City Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) ordered the condominium to install the valve in the garage, in accordance with plans DEP had approved. It announced that it would fine the condominium and possibly terminate water service to the building if the order wasn’t followed.

Facts: An association sued a member for possession of his unit after he refused to pay assessments and common expenses after being served with a demand notice by the association. At a hearing the member acknowledged that he owed the association money, but he disputed the amount of the debt. He asked the court to dismiss the case. The association asked the court for a judgment in its favor without a trial. The court ruled in favor of the association, and the member appealed.

Facts: An association filed a lien on a homeowner’s property after she didn’t pay dues or assessments for several years. It filed the lien under the Pennsylvania Uniform Planned Community Act (UPCA). In order to recoup the past-due amount, the association arranged for a sheriff’s sale of the homeowner’s property. But two days before the sale, the homeowner filed for bankruptcy, which meant that the association couldn’t sell her property at the sale. The sale was cancelled, but the association sought to enforce its lien.

Facts: Homeowners installed landscaping on their property without receiving approval from their association’s architectural review committee (ARC), which was required by restrictive covenants in the community’s governing documents. The homeowners refused to remove the landscaping after they were informed by the association’s manager that it conflicted with the appearance of the community and was prohibited. They argued that the restrictive covenants were vague and ambiguous as to what outdoor improvements could be made by homeowners.

Facts: An association’s governing documents granted the board the authority to levy a special assessment if the regular assessment is inadequate. The board raised the regular assessment from $100 per quarter to $130 per quarter. Notice was sent to the homeowners. This increase was discussed at the annual association meeting, which included the presence of a quorum of the membership. However, the members didn’t vote on the assessment increase.

Facts: Homeowners bought an empty lot in a planned development and hired an architect and contractor to build a three-story, single-family home there. Prior to building the lot, an association member with an adjacent lot asked the homeowners if they would like to jointly buy with him an empty lot that each of their properties had in common so that they could each have more space between their properties. The homeowners declined the offer and went ahead with plans to build on only their purchased lot.

Facts: A disabled homeowner sued her community association over the right to bring her service animal, a Chihuahua, into the community’s clubhouse. On three occasions, the homeowner was asked when she entered the clubhouse to produce documentation that she is disabled and that the dog is a service animal. She was also asked why the dog was necessary for her to be able to use the clubhouse. When the manager wasn’t satisfied with her responses, she ordered the homeowner to leave.