New Jersey Lawyer & Attorney : Stark & Stark Law Firm : New Jersey Law Blog

Community Association Property Managers ("CAPM") are much different than their "property manager" brethren.  In general, real estate property managers are responsible for ensuring that the apartment or condo building that they are charged with is functioning properly, much like a superintendent.  CAPM's on the other hand are fiduciaries of the properties that they manage.  They act on behalf of the Board on a myriad of issues.  They are the first line of defense and in some cases are the face of the community.  CAPM's contact, interview and bid contractors.   They enter into contracts on behalf of the Association.  They are responsible for the Association's finances, from tracking delinquent owners to paying vendors.  They are sometimes thrust into the role of mediator in attempting to settle homeowner disputes.  They are generally responsible for guiding volunteer board members in the procedures of the Association, and they are sometimes called on to interpret or explain the Association's governing documents or the law under which the Association is governed.  And yet, with all of this responsibility, community association property managers in New Jersey are not required to be licensed or certified.  There is no state-wide standard required for managers, no required training, no background checks, and no governing body charged with ensuring that managers have a minium amount of knowledge and/or experience.

In 2008 Senator Christopher Bateman sponsored a bill (S-759) that would certify Community Association Managers (anyone managing a condo, co-op or homeowners association), and would require anyone in the business of property management for common interest communities to be certified under standards created by the Department of Community Affairs consistent with already existing national standards.  The bill would not require certification, but would prohibit those without the certification from holding themselves out as being "certified" in the field of property management. The act would also require all Associations in New Jersey to hire only certified managers, and would require that the contract between the Association and the manager include the insurance, bonding and certification requirements.

 
The two year certification would require a mix of schooling and experience, and would then require that the applicant pass a written examination. Each certified manger would have to be bonded in the amount of $3,000. 

 
The requirements of the training and exam are likely to be similar to the National Board of Certification for Community Association Managers (NBC-CAM) which has created a certification for community association property managers.  This certification requires classroom study and an exam involving subjects such as governance and legal matters, budgets, reserves and assessments, risk management and insurance, maintenance, contracting and human resource management.  This certification, while obviously not a guarantee of superior service or compliance with each and every standard, at least sets a minium standard for those who enter this field. The certification also requires that managers:

• Be knowledgeable, act, and encourage clients to act in accordance with any and all federal, state, and local laws applicable to community association management and operations.
• Be knowledgeable, comply and encourage clients to comply with the applicable governing documents, policies and procedures of the Client Association(s) to the extent permitted by that Client.
• Not knowingly misrepresent materials facts, make inaccurate statements or act in any fraudulent manner while representing Client Association(s) or acting as a CMCA.
• Not provide legal advice to Client Association(s) or any of its members, or otherwise engage in the unlicenced practice of law.
• Promptly disclose to Client Association(s) any actual or potential conflicts of interest that may involve the manager.
• Refuse to accept any form of gratuity or other remuneration from individuals or companies that could be viewed as an improper inducement to influence the manager.
• Participate in continuing professional education and satisfy all requirements to maintain the certification.

Manager certification has been an issue since at least 1999 when the Assembly Local Government and Housing Committee discussed the pros and cons of such a certification, related to the proposed Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act. The current bill is presently being debated in committee, and mirrors a similar bill introduced by then Assemblyman Bateman in 2006.  The 2006 bill was abandoned before being put up to a vote of the Assembly.  However, now more than ever, this certification may be a necessary step in the field of community management.  There are new and larger associations cropping up across New Jersey, and more and more management companies being created to service these companies, some of which have no experience with condominiums, townhouses or cooperatives.  While obviously not a panacea, it would be extremely helpful to give the Board of Trustees a comfort level that the manager they wish to hire has studied specific issues and subjects that will enhance their ability to serve the community.  This is essential for volunteer, part-time Board Members who are often times unable to separate the good from the bad in the ever growing property management world.  It may also allow the quality CAPM's out there to further distinguish themselves from those who do not fully understand the full breadth of their position, or who are unable to properly service their community.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Everyone knows that humans only use 10% of their brains (not true, unless you mistakenly voted for Pat Buchanan in 2000), that Christopher Columbus called Native Americans "Indians" because he thought he landed in India (not possible, that part of the world was called Hindustan at the time) and that being cold will ensure that you actually catch a cold (also not true, sorry Mom).  So when you hear people say that they know mold causes serious personal injuries, you know it has to be true because common knowledge (as well as Dateline and 60 Minutes) tells us so.  Everyone has heard that a couple in Texas got $32 million dollars because their house was filled with so much mold they had to burn it down.  You likely didn't know that the money was paid by their insurance company for acting in bad faith and deceptively failing to cover their claim for property damage, not because they were physically damaged by mold exposure.  Read closely the articles about "toxic mold" and you'll find that most if not all of the money paid to homeowners is for lost personal items that have to be discarded because of mold/water damage, or some underhanded act of an insurance company.  Rarely are the damages directly related to mold exposure and resultant health problems.  Believe it or not, newspaper headlines are not designed to be accurate, they are designed to attract attention.  "Toxic Mold Injures Family" unfortunately just sounds better than "Insurance Company Pays Money on Bad Faith Claim". 

 

The connection between moldy houses and a particular physical ailment is a difficult one to make.  Mold is everywhere.  And while it is possible for some growths of mold to cause temporary damage to an allergic person, there is little if any proof that exposure to a certain type of mold will cause specific symptoms in anyone.  The effects of mold exposure differ from person to person.  In fact, the Centers for Disease Control web site states that:

Mold exposure does not always present a health problem indoors. However some people are sensitive to molds. These people may experience symptoms such as nasal stuffiness, eye irritation, wheezing, or skin irritation when exposed to molds. Some people may have more severe reactions to molds. Severe reactions may occur among workers exposed to large amounts of molds in occupational settings, such as farmers working around moldy hay. Severe reactions may include fever and shortness of breath. Immunocompromised persons and persons with chronic lung diseases like COPD are at increased risk for opportunistic infections and may develop fungal infections in their lungs.

Everyone knows that placing your hand over a flame will cause a burn.  Not even the scientists at the CDC know if the mold in your house or workplace will harm you. There are no recognized standards for the amount of mold that will cause symptoms, or the length of time you need to be exposed to certain mold to be injured.  Most people who have mold allergies stay away from hay, potpourri and indoor plants.  If they are exposed to mold they may have sneezing, coughing and breathing problems, but those go away as soon as they leave the horse stable or their grandparent's house.  These pesky facts however, have not precluded industrious lawyers and plaintiffs from filing numerous questionable "toxic mold" lawsuits.  Lawsuits based on the "I know it’s true" platform are being filed all the time, accompanied by "I'm a doctor and I'm pretty sure the Plaintiff was injured based on what they told me and that article I read last week" medical reports as proof.

 

Despite the fact that the CDC is unable to nail down a cause and effect relationship between mold and physical ailments, jurors around the country are asked every day to do just that.  They have become the means by which the courts differentiate the junk science from the real science.  This disturbing trend is, in part, a result of judges abdicating their responsibilities as expert witness gate keepers.  Increasingly, courts are allowing experts to testify, regardless of how they come to their conclusions, their level of mold related illness experience, or the plausibility of their conclusions.  The playoff football, "let them decide it on the field", approach is one that is leaving the final decisions to jurors, who inevitably bring their own "knowledge" to the courtroom.  Regardless of what "School House Rock" says, knowledge is not always power.  Sometimes "knowledge" isn't even accurate.  Take this example: 

 

Mr. Jones sues ABC Apartments for keeping his apartment too cold which, he claims, resulted in him having a runny nose, cough and that "achy feeling".  Mr. Jones produces a report from his family doctor that says "Mr. Jones told me it was cold in his apartment in November, so given the fact that his symptoms started in November, I believe that the low temperature caused his cold.  In addition, when he warmed up at his friend's house, the symptoms seemed to go away."  The doctor doesn't specify how cold is cold enough to make someone sick, nor does she account for the person sneezing in the cubicle next to Mr. Jones at work, or the fact that Mr. Jones had 3 colds before moving into ABC Apartments, or that during the 3 weeks between his first and second visit to the doctor, when he got better, Mr. Jones ate 37 oranges. 

 

ABC Apartments asks the judge to throw out this claim, because the Plaintiff can't show that A) it was too cold in the apartment because they can't define "too cold", B) if it was "too cold", that the temperature caused Mr. Jones to actually catch a cold, or that C) he didn't catch the cold from his cubicle-mate, or that D) the vitamin C in the oranges cleared up the cold, not the fact that he went to a warmer apartment.  The court denies ABC's request, saying that there is a sufficient basis for the report, and that ABC is free to beat up (verbally of course) the expert during cross examination and convince the jury that the doctor has no idea what she's talking about. 

 

This seems to be a reasonable decision, until my Mom is picked to sit on the jury.  As soon as my Mom hears that it was cold in the apartment, and that he has a cold, her mind would be made up.  As sure as the sun comes up in the morning, being cold gives you a cold.  There is no disagreement, believe me.  It doesn't matter if ABC produces the President of the Hot and Cold Association of America to testify that they took the temperature in the apartment, and its 59 degrees.  And while that might be mildly chilly, it’s definitely not cold, and besides, being mildly chilly doesn't cause any sort of illness.  There has been no such proof ever produced.  In my Mom's head, however, that Plaintiff wins 10 times out of 10.  Case closed.  The question then is, shouldn't the court have excluded this testimony to prevent my Mom from using what she "knows" to be true, even if there was no real causal connection?  Shouldn't the court know better than to allow an expert to testify that will at best confuse a jury and at worst confirm inaccurate "common knowledge".

 

The New Jersey Appellate Division thinks not.  In an unpublished opinion, the court recently permitted a case to go forward where a tenant claimed to have been injured by exposure to toxic mold.  In Smith v. Northridge at Edison, the Plaintiff's doctor, relying on the Plaintiff's explanation of the facts as she believed them to be, submitted a report that said essentially because the water intrusion and mold growth occurred at the same time as her symptoms, and because her symptoms seemed to diminish when she left the apartment, she was obviously damaged by the mold in the apartment.  The doctor claimed that the temporal similarities led him to believe that her condition was caused by the "harmful conditions present in her residence."  The doctor had never visited the apartment and did no testing or investigation of the types of contaminants present in the apartment.  The trial court dismissed the plaintiff's claims, finding that the doctors lack of specificity as to the type of mold spores, the lack of objective testing on the plaintiff, and the failure to identify that it was even mold in the apartment was fatal to the doctor's ability to testify.  There was no way to tell what the plaintiff thought was mold, actually was mold, and that whatever it was that was found type of mold caused the symptoms experienced by the plaintiff.

 

The Appellate Division, however, found that the temporal evidence (the fact that the "mold" apparently grew around the same time as the symptoms occurred and that the symptoms subsided when she left the apartment) and the plaintiff’s positive response to treatment, was sufficient to permit the doctor to testify at trial. The matter was remanded back to the trial court for further proceedings, which means a trial will eventually be held to determine the outcome of the case.  No word whether or not my Mom has been called for jury duty.

 

This case is an example of the courts increasing unwillingness to dismiss marginal claims or thinly based expert opinions.  Much like the criminal justice system would rather a guilty man go free than put an innocent man behind bars, the civil courts would rather permit a marginal claim to proceed, than dismiss even a slightly meritorious claim.  Americans should have their day in court.  Recent cases on toxic mold personal injury cases are a clear example of this philosophy.  The problem is that the pendulum has swung too far in favor of allowing almost any doctor to testify as to causation of mold personal injuries, mostly based on what they have been told by their patient, and permitting jurors to ignore the science in favor of what they think they know about mold and its health effects.  Courts need to take into account the possibility of an erroneous jury decision based on facts not in evidence, and the implicit message they send to jurors when allowing a doctor to testify on matters on which they have only slightly more experience than do the jurors.  Judges need to be the gatekeepers and the Appellate Division needs to support their effort.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A group of homeowners in the Carol Lynn Resorts campground have sued the property owners, the State of New Jersey and Woodbine Borough over alleged changes to the park rules and regulations.  The owners allege that the owners of the campground have recently changed the rules that call into question whether or not they can use the facility as a year round residence rather than a seasonal vacation spot. The owner of the property denies any such change to the rules and regulations and claims that even though the Department of Community Affairs grand fathered many of the residents in, and permitted them to live year round in the facility, and the borough approved an ordinance also permitting residents to live year-round in the facility, some homeowners were not satisfied. 

 

The dispute seems to stem from an interpretation of documents, although in the opinion of the property owner, there is no ambiguity and no resident will be asked to leave.  It seems as if in this case, as is bound to occur when a property or Association falls under multiple jurisdictions, that the various levels of government bureaucracy can not communicate sufficiently to provide a simple answer to whether or not residents are permitted to live year-round in the facility, and whether the property owner has a right to dictate otherwise.  It will be interesting to follow the results of this case, as there are many Associations across New Jersey that may or may not be incorporated, or officially recognized as a Homeowner's Association, and may not know under which agency's jurisdiction they fall under. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In an effort to protect beach going summer renters, owners in several New Jersey beach towns, such as Stone Harbor, will be required to obtain a renter’s licenses in order to in order to legally rent their units. The license will include, among other things, registration with the local municipality and a fire inspection.  The inspections will have to be conducted each year, at the cost of the owner, in order to maintain compliance with the law and avoid costly fines.  The program in Stone Harbor, for example, begins for the 2010 rental season, if it passes through an upcoming council vote.
 

If a unit fails inspection, it cannot be occupied until it passes. If it’s already occupied at the time of inspection, then the owner has 30 days from that time to make repairs or corrections. An owner of a rental may get another five days to make repairs after re-inspection within the 30-day period.  Of interest to condominium owners who rent their units, each condo unit will be considered a separate rental, which will require a separate inspection.  However, a valid inspection from the Department of Community Affairs, which inspects condominiums and multiple dwellings every 5 years to ensure compliance with the construction, housing and fire codes, will satisfy the license requirements, at least for the year that the DCA inspects the condo.  Check with your local municipal offices to see if there are similar requirements for renting your condominium unit or house.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A condominium association in Wildwood, NJ has had a crash course in the failure of the New Jersey New Home Warranty Act to protect the rights of New Jersey residents.  The condominium is being forced to watch their decks degrade and collapse before their eyes, while bureaucratic red tape and government inefficiency combine to create a disastrous situation for the unit owners.  The decks were improperly constructed, and as such, have experienced water intrusion that has caused decay, mold and even mushrooms to grow on the wood.  This has rendered them unusable.  After the problem came to light, and it became clear that the general contractor would not stand behind its work or the work of its subcontractors, the association looked to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) for assistance under the New Home Warranty Program.  The DCA inspected the property and found that the construction was improper and that the decks were rotted beyond repair.  Under the New Home Warranty Program the DCA declared that the general contractor (who was unable to do the work properly the first time) had 30 days to draft and submit a plan of repair and 30 days after that to actually repair the property. 
 

The general contractor, not surprisingly, has attempted to place blame with the Township inspectors, who should have caught its inferior work during their routine inspections.  However, the general contractor knows full well that the responsibility of the Township inspectors is extremely limited, and they are surely not responsible for ensuring that the architectural plans or specifications are followed.  They are merely there to make a cursory review of the property and ensure that the work meets very minium requirements for safety.  They do not ensure quality workmanship.  That job, pursuant to the building code, is the general contractor's alone.  Their reliance on the Township inspectors is a transparent attempt to deflect the blame to someone else.  
 

The association has learned a difficult lesson that many across New Jersey have learned the hard way.  Because it chose to file a claim under the New Home Warranty Program, its fate is no longer in its own hands.  The DCA will decide on the scope of the repair, who does that repair and the cost at which the repair will be done.  The association has little, if any, input going forward.  If the association is not satisfied with the repairs suggested or eventually conducted, they are unable to appeal the decision in court.  Once a person or association files a claim under the New Home Warranty Program, they are prohibited from suing any of the parties responsible for those defects in New Jersey Superior Court.  The decision of the DCA (or the warranty company) is final and more often than not, the program favors builders and contractors over the homeowners.
 

Associations from Cape May to Bergen County, should be aware of their rights before filing a claim with the New Home Warranty Program.  In order to make a fully informed decision, the association should contact an attorney who is versed in the practice of construction in New Jersey and who knows condominium and homeowners association rules and regulations. For example, under the statute of repose in New Jersey, homeowners and condominium associations generally have 10 years from the date that construction is completed to sue the general contractor and its subcontractors for damages related to the construction.  Often times, depending on the type of damage that the association has incurred, the contractor's insurance policies can be source of recovery for the association.  This may provide a more complete recovery, a more favorable result for the association, and it will certainly provide the association more control over its destiny then they will receive by putting its fate in the hands of government officials who may not be completely interested in obtaining the most favorable result for the association. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (the "Act"),  which recently passed the U.S. House, contains certain provisions that restrict homeowners associations from prohibiting the use of solar energy systems.  Many associations contain certain restrictions, the enforcement of which has either been given to a board of trustees via a master declaration, or to the surrounding homeowners via a deed restriction and/or neighborhood scheme.  However, the Act (also known as the Waxman-Markey Act) prohibits associations from any action "that impairs the installation, construction, maintenance or use of solar energy systems."  New Jersey has already addressed this issue by way of N.J.S.A. 45:22A-48.2 which limits the Associations powers to regulating the qualifications of installation personnel, solar collector location, concealment and size.  However, if the Act becomes law, as written, it may supersede current statutes and could further curtail the restrictions that associations may impose upon its owners. 
 
 

It is important to note that this legislation does not affect the rights and responsibilities of condominium owners and boards pursuant to the New Jersey Condominium Act.  In most, if not all condominiums the roofs are designated as common elements or common property.  Therefore, the decision to install solar collectors on the roof of a condominium would have to be made solely by the condominium association’s. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In New Jersey, new home builders are not required to have general liability insurance. As a result, purchasers of new homes and condominium units are sometimes left without recourse in the event that their home was not constructed properly.

 

As discussed in several Superior Court opinions, the New Home Warranty Program is ineffectual at best and is rarely an advisable option. Therefore, homeowners and condominium associations are often times forced to sue the developer of their property in an effort to obtain money for necessary repairs. Unfortunately, it often happens that home builders and condominium developers create a corporation or limited liability company for a specific project. The company is minimally funded, and it hires only independent subcontractors. The company is then shut down when the project is completed. A judgment against this company would be completely worthless. In other instances, if a project is not particularly profitable, the developer company may file for bankruptcy protection and whatever limited assets it has would be disbursed to the various creditors. In these situations, if the homeowner or association discovers defects in the construction after several years, there would be no source of recovery. The warranty program provides almost no assistance, and suing a defunct corporation is a waste of time. Therefore, the homeowner or association would be stuck paying for costly repairs. However, if the developer had general liability insurance in place during the project, those insurance policies could provide coverage for the construction defects. Unfortunately, in New Jersey and many other states, builders are permitted to develop land and build homes with minimal or no insurance in place.

 

In order to prevent these problems and protect new homeowners, the Nevada Assembly has proposed a bill that would require all licensed contractors to carry liability insurance. The bill would require all contractors to carry between $300,000 and $3 million worth of insurance, depending upon the size of the contract. According to the bill's sponsor, Majority Leader John Oceguera, this would protect homeowners from having to sue and/or negotiate with shell companies that are no longer in business, or companies that have filed for bankruptcy protection. Not surprisingly, the Associated General Contractors organization in Nevada objects to the proposed requirement, claiming that insurance is an expensive product, that it would put a significant burden on the contractors and that the cost would be passed directly to the homeowners. The bill has not yet passed, and faces strong opposition as well as a competing bill from the Nevada Senate.

 

In the last several years, the New Jersey legislature sought fit to require home improvement contractors to carry liability insurance, but has thus far not applied such a requirement to new home builders and developers of cooperatives and condominiums. We will continue to monitor the situation, and update our readers in the event that additional information becomes available.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The New Jersey Appellate Division recently decided the matter of McGinty v. K. Hovnanian at Somerset, A-6100-07 (March 17, 2009), in which the Plaintiffs argued that a leak in their condominium unit in 1985 gave rise to a lawsuit filed in 2004.  The Plaintiffs, parents and children, lived in the home from 1985 until 1990.  When the family first moved in, they had a water leak from a bathroom pipe, which caused damage and mold growth.  The children claim in their 2004 lawsuit that exposure to toxic substances caused them to suffer from neurotoxicity with attention and cognitive problems.  The Defendants filed motions for summary judgment under the New Jersey Statute of Repose, N.J.S.A. seeking to dismiss their claims.

 

The Plaintiffs had several responsive arguments, each of which the court rejected.  The court found that the statute of repose began to run upon substantial completion of the McGinty's unit, not the completion of the entire 2,663 unit development nearly ten years later, as argued by the Plaintiffs.  The court relied upon the Supreme Court cases of Daidone v. Buterick Bulkheading, 191 N.J. 557, 564 (2007), in which the Supreme Court found that the Statute of Repose began to run upon "substantial completion" of their unit, not the entire project.
 

The court also found that although Hovnanian performed repairs after the certificate of occupancy was issued, those repairs were "temporary and cosmetic" and thus did not constitute a separate improvement to the property, and even if they were separate improvements, the complaint was not filed within ten years of those repairs.
 

Interestingly, the plaintiffs further argued that the statute of repose was not meant to deny recovery to a person who is in direct privity with the negligent party, but was intended only to apply to a third-party social guest, with no direct privity to the owner-builder.  The court rejected this argument as well, finding no such language in the statute.
 

All of the claims, including the personal injury claims were extinguished within 10 years of the date of the certificate of occupancy.  This decision reinforces the strict nature of the statute of repose and the New Jersey Judiciary's strict adherence to the letter and intent of the statute as drafted by the legislature.  If you or your Association has incurred damage related to the construction or improvement of real property, contact the author of this article to discuss your rights under the statute of repose and other applicable statutes and rules. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The New Jersey Superior Court recently found that under New Jersey law, when used properly, the fictitious party practice allows a plaintiff to join a specific subcontractor more than 10 years from the date of it's work.  In Society Hill at University Heights III Condominium Association, Inc. v. K. Hovnanian at Newark Urban Renewal Corp., III, Inc. et al, ESX-L-5867-03, the court permitted a claim against a contractor that had allegedly completed its work in 1994 but was not joined until 2008 to proceed. 

New Jerseys Statute of Repose N.J.S.A. §2A:14-1.1 provides in pertinent part that:

No action . . . arising out of the defective and unsafe condition of an improvement to real property, nor any action for contribution or indemnity for damages sustained on account of such injury, shall be brought against any person performing or furnishing the design, planning, surveying, supervision of construction or construction of such improvement to real property, more than 10 years after the performance or furnishing of such services and construction.
[N.J.S.A. § 2A:14-1.1]

The statute applies to, among others, building contractors, whose professional work is functionally related to and integrated with a building plan or design, which gives rise or contributes to a defective and unsafe condition.   E.A. Williams Inc. v. Russo Development Corp., 82 N.J. 160, 169; (1980).   However, the New Jersey Supreme Court, in Greczyn v. Colgate-Palmolive, 183 N.J. 5 (2005), addressed the interplay between the fictitious party practice and the Statute of Repose.  In doing so, the court allowed plaintiffs to join defendants in a lawsuit after the expiration of the statute of repose as long as the plaintiff was diligent in determining the identity of the responsible party.  In Society Hill, supra, the New Jersey Superior Court relied upon the Greczyn case in allowing the Condominium Association to continue its case against one of the contractors, in part, because the Association relied upon another defendant, the Developer K. Hovnanian, for information and documents related to the construction of the buildings.  Given that the Association did not construct the buildings, it was at the mercy of the Developer and others as to information related to construction.  Once that information was provided and thoroughly reviewed by the Association, the contractor was joined by name in the lawsuit.  The Judge found that it is at least a question of fact as to whether or not the Association was diligent in joining the contractor, thereby leaving the issue to be determined by the jury.

If your association has building issues and have been told that your claims are barred by either the statute of limitations or statute of repose, contact my office to discuss.  Your community may have options and other means of recovery for construction defects caused by negligent construction.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The New Jersey Superior Court recently found that a condominium association that hired a contractor to install a window wall system on the 15th floor of the high-rise building can bring a suit for improper installation of the windows, and water intrusion, even though windows are unit owner property pursuant to the Master Deed.  In Skyline Condominium Association, Inc. v. AAA, the Association hired AAA to install a window/wall system on the 15th floor of the building.  The window/wall system began to experience problems and water infiltration and the Association sued AAA.  AAA then filed a motion to dismiss the Association's claims, arguing that the Association did not have standing to sue, given that pursuant to the Master Deed, windows are unit owner responsibility and not common elements.  The Association, in response, argued that the window wall system is not a "window" as defined in the master deed, that pursuant to the master deed language, the Association can repair unit owner owned property when it deems necessary, and that the Association had a direct contractual relationship with AAA which created standing for the Association to sue AAA.  Ultimately the court agreed with the Association, denying AAA's motion and finding that the direct contractual relationship with AAA permitted the Association's lawsuit to continue.

If you have questions related to building related defects, whether or not your association can recover damages on behalf of the unit owners, or if your master deed contains similar language that permits the association to act when it deems necessary, please email me at MWiechnik@stark-stark.com.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks