Condominium Disputes Over Capital Expenses

Oberbillig vs West Grand Towers Condo. Assoc., No. 09-1097, Iowa Supreme Court December 16, 2011. This case discusses the business judgment rule as it applies to management decisions of a nonprofit condo owners association. A $200,000 repair of the parking garage was allowed by the Court even in light of a bylaw provision requiring repairs over $25,000 to be approved by 2/3rds of the owners. Another provision in the bylaws exempted common elements from the 2/3rds vote requirement and the court found this restrictive language to be ambiguous. Holding: We hold the business judgment rule applies to the governance decisions of the board of this nonprofit condominium owners association when the board acts within its authority. We conclude the bylaw at issue is ambiguous and defer to the board’s authority under the governing declaration to decide questions of interpretation or application of the bylaws. Accordingly, we reverse the district court and remand for entry of judgment for the Association and for further proceedings on its counterclaim. Bylaw Provision at issue: Except for the management agreement described in Article II, Section 8(c) hereof and expenditures and contracts specifically authorized by the Declaration and Bylaws, the board shall not approve any expenditure in excess of Twenty-five Thousand Dollars ($25,000), unless required for emergency repair, protection or operation of the Common Elements or Limited Common Element, nor enter any contract for more than five (5) years without the prior approval of two-thirds (2/3) of the total ownership of the Common Elements. And the following provision: In the event of any dispute or disagreement between any Unit Owners relating to the Property, or any questions of interpretation or application of the provisions of the Declaration or Bylaws, such dispute or disagreement shall be submitted to the Board. The determination of such dispute or disagreement by the Board shall be binding on each and all such Unit Owners, subject to the right of Unit Owners to seek other remedies provided by law after such determination by the Board. In interpreting the language in the declaration that was found to be ambiguous the Court applied the doctrine of the last preceding antecedent. “[W]e have consistently reasoned that qualifying words and phrases ordinarily refer only to the immediately preceding antecedent.”) HOA boards are like mini-city councils with broad powers to effectuate their intended duties of running the organization and in maintaining the common elements. With this ruling the Court took away the opportunity for a small group of owners to block necessary repairs that cost in excess of $25,000. Business Judgment Rule: As for the business judgment rule the Court said, “The “heart of the business judgment rule” is “judicial deference to business decisions by corporate directors.” Matthew G. Doré, 6 Iowa Practice: Business Organizations § 28:6, at 94 (2011 ed.). The business judgment rule applies “[w]hen directors act in good faith in making a business decision, when the decision is reasonably prudent, and when the directors believe it to be in the corporate interest . . . .” Hanrahan v. Kruidenier, 473 N.W.2d 184, 186 (Iowa 1991). The rule would not permit directors to violate an unambiguous bylaw; rather, the rule (if applicable) would provide judicial deference to board action authorized by the Association’s governing documents. “ What did the board do right? 1. They held meetings and kept the owners informed of the problem, the bidding and the need for repairs. 2. They held a vote. 3. The board properly and thoroughly investigated the need for the repairs. 4. The obtained competitive bids. 5. They held a legitimate competitive bidding process. 6. The repairs could have resulted in a serious safety issue involving the integrity of the structure. 7. They followed the provision above that gave the board the right to cure ambiguity in the interpretation of the declaration of bylaws. 8. They held a vote on the special assessment. 9. In almost every respect the board’s action appears reasonable. 10. In almost every respect the board’s action appears necessary for the safety of the residents and to protect the value of the common elements. 11. The acted in a conscientious manner at every step. 12. The Declarations included a “Board’s Determination Binding” clause giving the board the power to settle ambiguity in the documents. 13. In letting the contracts the board was not self-dealing, there was no fraud nor was there any conflict of interest shown. Am I critical of this decision? Only to the extent that attorney fees were awarded against the losing party. It seems to me that when the ruling is based on ambiguity in the condominium documents that no one should be awarded attorney fees. Each party pay their own fees; to do otherwise discourages owners from getting the courts input into how documents, in this case imperfect, shall be interpreted in the future. I guess if I were to make one suggestion it would be for owners to use mediation to resolve these types of issues. It’s cheaper and quicker. http://www.iowacourts.gov/Supreme_Court/Recent_Opinions/20111216/09-1097.pdf

For good advice see a lawyer and if you have questions about this blog, the law or your case write or call me directly. Steve Lombardi, sdlombardi@aol.com and 515-222-1110. I handle all types of personal injury cases including car accidents, truck accidents, motorcycle accidents, workers' compensation cases. We help truckers all across the country who come through Iowa and end up in an accident. If we need other lawyers from other states we hire them and it costs you no more than what you would pay us; in other words, we split the fee between us. So call 515-222-1110 or email us at sdlombardi@aol.com.
Steve Lombardi, Attorney