Breene v. Plaza Tower Ass'n, 9957
Decision Date | 05 October 1981 |
Docket Number | No. 9957,9957 |
Parties | Janet Lucas BREENE and A. William Lucas, Plaintiffs and Appellees, v. PLAZA TOWER ASSOCIATION, a corporation, Defendant and Appellant. Civ. |
Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
Lundberg, Conmy, Nodland, Lucas & Schulz, Bismarck, for plaintiffs and appellees; argued by A. William Lucas, Bismark.
Fleck, Mather, Strutz & Mayer, Bismarck, for defendant and appellant; argued by Brian R. Bjella, Bismarck.
This is an appeal by the defendant, Plaza Tower Association (hereinafter referred to as Association) from a summary judgment granted in favor of the plaintiffs, Janet Lucas Breene and A. William Lucas (hereinafter referred to as Breene), in which certain amendments to the by-laws of Plaza Tower were declared not legally binding upon Breene, and further, that any amendments that may be made to the declaration of restrictions of Plaza Tower would have only a prospective effect.
On 10 May 1974 Breene purchased unit 4D in the Plaza Tower condominium in the city of Bismarck, North Dakota. The association is a corporation organized under the North Dakota condominium statutes (Ch. 47-04.1, North Dakota Century Code) for the purpose of serving as managing and governing body for the condominium. When Breene purchased the interest in the condominium, there was no restriction relating to the sale or lease of the unit other than a provision giving the association the right of first refusal to purchase or lease the unit. The first-refusal option was in the association's bylaws by reference and specifically in the declaration of the condominium. At the time Breene purchased the unit, the declaration contained a provision which provided that the declaration could be amended at any regular or special meeting of the association by a vote of three-fourths of the members of the association. 1
On May 1979 the association passed and adopted an amendment to its bylaws. The amended bylaw in substance provided that all units of the condominium were to be occupied by the unit owner and that the leasing of a unit to a non-owner was prohibited except in the following situations:
The amendment to the bylaws was not recorded in the office of the register of deeds of Burleigh County, pursuant to NDCC § 47-04.1-07.
By a letter dated 7 Nov. 1980, Breene requested permission from the president of the Association (Albert Hartl) to rent the condominium unit to another party. However, the request was denied, and Breene commenced the present action to declare the Association's bylaws invalid as applied to unit 4D and to enjoin the Association from enforcing its bylaws against Breene.
Breene subsequently brought a motion for summary judgment and a hearing on that motion was held on 2 Feb. 1981. The district court granted Breene's motion in a memorandum opinion dated 3 Feb. 1981 and a judgment was entered on 9 Feb. 1981. A notice of appeal to this Court was filed on 11 Mar. 1981.
On 9 Feb. 1981, the same day the summary judgment was entered, the Association adopted two amendments to the declaration which placed restrictions on the right to lease which were similar to those contained in the bylaws adopted on 14 May 1979. The amendments to the declaration were recorded with the register of deeds of Burleigh County on 11 Feb. 1981.
The district court's memorandum opinion indicates that the subject matter before the court was tacitly heard and decided as if the amendment to the declaration had been adopted and recorded with the register of deeds' office. 2 Further, the judgment provided, in pertinent part, as follows:
Plaza Tower raised the following issue for our review:
Whether or not an amendment to the Declaration of a Condominium, restricting the use of an individual unit, may be applied retroactively to persons who had purchased a unit prior to promulgation of the amendments?
Breene asserts that this question was not a part of the declaratory judgment action and not part of the motion for summary judgment and, therefore, is not properly before this Court on appeal.
The judgment contains language giving only prospective effect to any amendment to the declaration of restrictions. Furthermore, the memorandum opinion contains similar language which reflects that the matter was tacitly heard and decided. Based on this, it is apparent that the district court judge considered the pending amendment to the declaration and tailored his ruling to deal with the amendment. Because of this we believe the issue concerning the amendment to the declaration is properly before this Court.
The issue for our review must be resolved within the procedural framework of Rule 56, North Dakota Rules of Civil Procedure and our summary judgment law.
Summary judgment is a procedural device available for the prompt and expeditious disposition of a controversy without a trial if there is no dispute as to either the material facts and the inferences to be drawn from undisputed facts, or whenever only a question of law is involved. Herman v. Magnuson, 277 N.W.2d 445 (N.D. 1979); Zuraff v. Empire Fire & Marine Insurance Co., 252 N.W.2d 302 (N.D. 1977).
Although it is inherent in the condominium concept that each unit owner must give up a certain degree of freedom of choice he might otherwise enjoy in separate, privately owned property, the condominium concept must operate within the applicable statutes as well as the constitutions.
The statutory provisions relating to condominiums requires that the declaration of condominium, the restrictions, and the bylaws must be recorded in the office of the register of deeds in the county where the property is located. NDCC §§ 47-04.1-02, 47-04.1-04, 47-04.1-07. These statutory provisions contemplate a method to put prospective purchasers and owners on notice as to the restrictions and bylaws which affect their interest in the property. A prospective purchaser's decision to buy a particular unit in a condominium may be based upon the recorded restrictions which encumber that unit. In order to exercise the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Toni v. Toni
...except for such waiver, the party would have enjoyed." Steckler v. Steckler, 492 N.W.2d 76, 79 (N.D.1992); accord Breene v. Plaza Tower Ass'n, 310 N.W.2d 730, 734 (N.D.1981). The agreement in this case merely stated "[t]he court shall be divested of jurisdiction to modify in any manner what......
-
Woodside Village Condominium Association, Inc. v. Jahren
...Club, L.P. v. Ocean Club Condominium Ass'n (In re 560 Ocean Club, L.P.), 133 B.R. 310, 320 (Bankr.D.N.J.1991); Breene v. Plaza Tower Ass'n, 310 N.W.2d 730, 734 (N.D.1981). An appellate opinion from Illinois is illustrative of these decisions. In Apple II Condominium Ass'n v. Worth Bank & Tr......
-
Shorewood West Condominium Ass'n v. Sadri
...restriction was adopted. See Winston Towers 200 Ass'n v. Saverio, 360 So.2d 470, 471 (Fla.3d Dist.Ct.App.1978); Breene v. Plaza Tower Ass'n, 310 N.W.2d 730, 734 (N.D.1981). Nevertheless, most courts apply amendments to all unit owners, reasoning that purchasers know that bylaws can be amend......
-
Raymond v. Aquarius Condominium Owners Ass'n, Inc.
...Sterling Village Condominium, Inc. v. Breitenbach, 251 So.2d 685 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1971); see also Breene v. Plaza Tower Association, 310 N.W.2d 730 (N.D.1981). The cases cited by appellants are basically not in Appellants also rely on the holding in Thiess v. Island House Association, Inc.,......
-
Making a Business of "residential Use": the Short-term-rental Dilemma in Common-interest Communities
...1989); Worthinglen Condo. Unit Owners' Ass'n v. Brown, 566 N.E.2d 1275, 1279 (Ohio Ct. App. 1989).67. See Breene v. Plaza Tower Ass'n, 310 N.W.2d 730, 734-35 (N.D. 1981) (North Dakota condominium statute requires restrictions to be recorded in the declaration prior to conveyance; owner know......