Megan Mantzavinos, Esquire of Mark’s O’Neill’s Maryland office successfully advocated for the entry of a declaratory judgment in favor of her client, a condominium association.  Plaintiffs are the owners of a unit of a high-rise condominium in Ocean City, MD.  The unit directly upstairs from Plaintiffs had a water leak which caused damage in their unit.  They made a claim against the condominium for the cost of repairs.

Pursuant to a provision in its bylaws, the Defendant maintains a “bare walls” insurance policy which covers damage to the common areas of the building, but not to anything inside the condominium units.  When Defendant refused to pay for the damage to the Planitiffs’ unit, they filed suit, seeking a declaration that the condo association was required to pay for the damage.  After limited discovery, the parties filed cross motions for summary judgment.

The current version of the Maryland Condominium Act, Md. Code Ann. Real Property s. 11-101, et seq., places responsibility for repair of condominium units with the condo association, and requires it to maintain insurance for damage to the interior of units.  Md. Code Ann. Real. Prop. S. 11-114.  But an earlier version of the Act, which was in effect when the Defendant was formed in 1975, did not require condo associations to repair individual units after a casualty loss.  In 2008, the Maryland Supreme Court had ruled that condominiums which were formed prior to the enactment of the current statute were not responsible for individual units, Anderson v. Council of Unit Owners of Gables on Tuckerman Condominium, 404 Md. 560, 591 (2008); however, that ruling was overturned by statute a year later.

Defendant’s argument relied on another section of the Condominium Act, which Plaintiffs ignored, Md. Code Ann. Real Prop. ss.  11-142(a) and (b).  This section provides that condominiums which existed before July 1, 1982 are subject to the requirements of s. 11-114, unless the condo’s governing documents provide otherwise.  s. 11-142 also states that a pre-July 1, 1982 condo is not required to amend its governing documents to comply with the requirements of s. 11-114.

The Circuit Court for Worcester County found that although s. 11-114 still applies to condo associations formed before July 1, 1982, but that if the bylaws contain provisions which conflict with 11-114, then the bylaws control.  The Court examined Defendants’ bylaws, and found that they placed responsibility for maintenance and repair work inside a unit with the unit owner.  The Court also found that the bylaws limited Defendant’s obligation to insure the condominium did not include anything within the individual units.  Read as a whole, the Court characterized Defendant’s bylaws as creating a “comprehensive, complementary mechanism for addressing damage to the condominium unit.”  Accordingly, the Court granted Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and denied Plaintiff’s.

Attorneys Christian Scheuerman and Tennessis Guerrero of the MOODK’s Philadelphia Office obtained a verdict in favor of their client, a local homeowners association, following a bench trial in Monroe County, Pennsylvania. Plaintiff claimed he was owed monetary damages after his submission of an amended floor plan for a new home he planned to build in the community was denied by MOODK’s client. Plaintiff stated that he intended to change the use of one of the rooms contained in the floor plan and convert it to a 6th bedroom. MOODK’s client denied the floor plan for purposes of renting and leasing because the space he intended to convert into a 6th bedroom did not comply with the Association’s rules, which required a bedroom to be a minimum of 100 sq feet and intended for sleeping purposes only. In this case, the room was not intended for only sleeping purposes because the 6th bedroom was not set apart from the kitchen and dining room. Rather, the space was an open space lay out and MOODK’s client argued it was not intended for sleeping purposes only because the space was for cooking, dining, and sleeping. Construction on Plaintiff’s lot has not yet begun. Plaintiff sued MOODK’s client claiming the Association’s denial caused him financial harm because he would lose resale value and rental income. MOODK’s attorneys successfully argued that Plaintiff lacked standing because the damages were purely speculative and unascertainable. The attorneys further argued that the proposed floor plan did not comply with the Association’s rules, which the Court agreed with and denied Plaintiff his requested relief.