Grey v. Coastal States Holding Co.

Decision Date18 September 1990
Docket NumberNo. 7963,7963
Citation578 A.2d 1080,22 Conn.App. 497
CourtConnecticut Court of Appeals
PartiesBetty H. GREY et al. v. COASTAL STATES HOLDING COMPANY et al.

Louis Ciccarello, Norwalk, for appellants(plaintiffs).

Michael W. Lyons, with whom was John J. Bove, Norwalk, and, on the brief, Anthony E. Schwartz, Bridgeport, and Salvatore J. Coppola, Norwalk, for appellees(named defendant et al.).

Before DUPONT, C.J., and EDWARD Y. O'CONNELL and LAVERY, JJ.

DUPONT, Chief Judge.

This appeal arises out of an action for compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive relief and attorney's fees against the owners of three residential condominium units and against Hawkins Landing Association, Inc.(the association), 1 brought by the owners of the two remaining condominium units.The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants' units were expanded, in violation of article XIII, § 13.4, of the association's declaration and of General Statutes § 47-236(d), when they built an additional story onto each of their units and increased the ground footage of those units.The plaintiffs further alleged that the defendants thereby appropriated to their sole use certain common elements in which all unit owners had an interest.The trial court awarded attorney's fees to the plaintiffs in the amount of $27,000 and ordered the defendants to revise the condominium documents at their own expense to reflect the expansion of the defendants' units and to take the necessary action to reallocate the common expenses in accordance with the current square footage of the living area of each unit.The court refused to grant other damages or to require the restoration of the defendants' units to their original square footage 2 or to order the association to take all steps necessary to prevent future violations of the condominium documents.The plaintiffs appeal from that judgment.3We affirm.

On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the court improperly (1) failed to determine that the upward expansion of the defendants' units was an appropriation of air space that was common to all unit owners, (2) failed to award compensatory damages in proportion to the plaintiffs' percentage interests in the wrongfully appropriated common elements and (3) failed to conclude that the defendants were unjustly enriched by the wrongful appropriation of the plaintiffs' interests in the common elements as measured by the value of the improvements to the defendants' units.

The plaintiffsBetty H. Grey and Louis D. Grey own one unit (4E) in a five unit residential condominium, composed of four separate buildings, and known as Hawkins Landing.The plaintiffPeter Kingsbury owns one unit (4D) in the same building as the unit belonging to the other two plaintiffs.The defendantsCoastal States Holding Company(Coastal States) and Alvin Farans, a partner in Coastal States, own unit 1A, and the defendantRonald Kellogg owns units 2B and 3C.Each of the three units owned by the defendants is a separate structure.The defendant association is a non-stock corporation that manages and controls the condominium through its executive board.At the time of this litigation, Betty Grey, Kingsbury, Farans and Kellogg comprised the executive board.

The trial court found that at the time of the condominium declaration in August 1985, units 1A and 2B were one story cottages.Prior to the declaration, Farans, acting for Coastal States, had been issued a building permit to build an addition and add a second story to unit 1A.The permit was issued on December 12, 1984, and required that construction commence within six months.On May 28, 1985, however, Coastal States filed with the town planning and zoning commission a revised set of plans that showed a one story dwelling, and it marked the original plans for two stories void.The trial court found, therefore, that, at the time of the declaration, the only construction plan in effect for unit 1A was for a single story dwelling.

The court further found that, at an executive board meeting held on May 21, 1986, Betty Grey expressed concern about Kellogg's plans to renovate unit 2B to add second and third levels.At the meeting, Farans described his plan for a second floor addition to unit 1A.The plaintiffs were unaware that Coastal States, on February 6, 1986, had been issued a building permit to construct a second story.

On May 27, 1986, Betty Grey and Kingsbury wrote a letter to Kellogg stating that they had no objection to the addition of second stories to units 1A and 2B if the condominium documents were revised to avoid title problems.The court concluded, therefore, that Kellogg and Coastal States could reasonably have assumed that there would be eventual consent to the addition of two stories when the legal technicalities were resolved.

The court concluded that at another meeting on June 18, 1986, the parties had reached a consensus on a means of determining compensation for the air expansion into common elements and that the agreement could be reduced to writing.An agreement was drafted by the plaintiffs' attorney and signed by them.Kellogg and Coastal States refused to sign it, however, because, in addition to the agreed upon items, it provided for the payment by the defendants of the plaintiffs' attorney's fees.4

The court found that on June 26, 1986, the date the agreement was delivered to Kellogg, Coastal States began construction, "acting under the belief that an agreement had been reached."The court further found that Farans believed he had the right, pursuant to article VIII, § 8.1, of the declaration, to add a second story.The plaintiffs began their action against Coastal States in July, 1986.

Kellogg obtained a building permit for a small addition and a second floor to be added to unit 2B on July 8, 1986, and began construction in September, 1987.The court found that he believed that a September, 1987 dismissal of the plaintiffs' action against him was based on its merits, and therefore left him free to begin construction of a second story.

The court made a number of other relevant factual findings and drew conclusions from those findings.As a result of the additions, unit 1A was increased by 986 square feet of living space, representing an increase in appraised value of $182,410, and unit 2B was increased by 751 square feet of living space, for an increase in value of $138,935.The expanded footprint of unit 1A took fifty square feet of common area, an overall increase of thirty square feet and that of 2B took twenty eight square feet of common area, an overall increase of fifteen square feet.5

The defendants' expansions resulted in a benefit to them and a loss to the plaintiffs of their property interests.The expansion of the units took square footage of common areas and represented changes in the boundaries of those units requiring unanimous consent of the unit owners pursuant to the declaration.Because the expansions were not done with unanimous consent of the unit owners, the condominium agreement was violated.The expansions, however, were accomplished in the belief that an agreement among the unit owners had been reached, and the court, therefore, concluded that the defendants had not wilfully failed to comply with the Common Interest Ownership Act or the declaration and that the requested remedy of restoration was too harsh.On the basis of these findings and conclusions, the court denied the relief of restoring 1A and 2B to their original condition, and declined to award punitive damages under General Statutes § 47-278.

The plaintiffs had requested compensatory damages.They sought 40 percent 6 of the increase in the value of units 1A and 2B.Evidence had been presented from which the court could assess the increase in the value of those units because of the additions to them.The court refused to grant damages on that basis because it found such an award was not supported by statute or case law and because § 47-212(a) barred the award of consequential, special or punitive damages unless specifically provided for by law.The court further refused to grant compensatory damages on any other basis because the plaintiffs had not produced evidence of their actual monetary loss, of the value of any reduction in their unit ownership interest in Hawkins Landing or of the value of the common elements of which they were deprived as a result of the expansion.

The trial court was correct in finding that the defendants had violated the condominium declaration by expanding their units.It did not, however, determine whether air space was a common element.The court's memorandum of decision can be construed to imply that air space is a common element, but, in response to a motion for articulation, the court specifically refused to find that the air space above and surrounding the physical structures of units 1A and 2B constituted a common element.7

Because the plaintiffs, by the terms of the condominium documents, have an interest in any common elements, we must determine whether the land and air space taken were common elements.Common elements are defined as "all portions of the common interest community other than the units."General Statutes § 47-202(4)(A);Declaration of Hawkins Landing, art. I, § 1.5.It is elementary to say that what is not a unit is a common element, if it is within the real estate owned by the condominium association.General Statutes § 47-202(4)(A)."Real property" under the act includes spaces that may be filled with air.General Statutes § 47-202(26).In addition to land itself, the right to use the air above that land is a property interest, capable of...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
10 cases
  • Fruin v. Colonnade One at Old Greenwich Ltd. Partnership
    • United States
    • Connecticut Court of Appeals
    • September 28, 1995
    ...chapter...." General Statutes § 47-278. Remedies under CIOA are to be liberally construed so that an aggrieved party may be put in as good a position as if the other party had fully performed. Grey v. Coastal States Holding Co., 22 Conn.App. 497, 504-505, 578 A.2d 1080, cert. denied, 216 Conn. 817, 580 A.2d 57 (1990). CIOA also provides that supplemental general principles of law are applicable in interpreting the act. General Statutes § 47-207. There is, however,...
  • Simko v. Ervin
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • July 25, 1995
    ...71, 79, 629 A.2d 1089 (1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1164, 114 S.Ct. 1190, 127 L.Ed.2d 540 (1994); Gil v. Inland Wetlands & Watercourses Agency, 219 Conn. 404, 408, 416, 593 A.2d 1368 (1991); Grey v. Coastal States Holding Co., 22 Conn.App. 497, 502, 578 A.2d 1080, cert. denied, 216 Conn. 817, 580 A.2d 57 (1990); SSM Associates Ltd. v. Plan & Zoning Commission, 15 Conn.App. 561, 563, 545 A.2d 602 (1988), aff'd, 211 Conn. 331, 559 A.2d 196 (1989); and this...
  • Rafalowski v. Old County Road, Inc.
    • United States
    • Connecticut Superior Court
    • March 26, 1997
    ...declaration and bylaws and thereby depriving them of information and input to which they were entitled. The plaintiffs offered no evidence upon which the court could base an award of more than nominal damages. See Grey v. Coastal States Holding Co., supra, 22 Conn.App. 497, 507, 578 A.2d 1080. Consequently, nominal damages of one dollar are awarded to each plaintiff on this count. Judgment shall enter for the plaintiffs on this Count Three In count three, the plaintiffs allege that the defendant445, 335 A.2d 301 (1973). It has been held that condominium unit owners could recover only nominal damages for another owners' breach of a condominium declaration absent evidence of decline in value of their units. Grey v. Coastal States Holding Co., 22 Conn.App. 497, 507, 578 A.2d 1080, cert. denied, 216 Conn. 817, 580 A.2d 57 (1990). At trial, the plaintiffs offered neither expert testimony nor other persuasive evidence indicating that there had been a decline in the value of...
  • Bella Vista Condominium Ass'n, v. Byars
    • United States
    • Connecticut Court of Appeals
    • July 03, 2007
    ...cause of action against the declarant or others who are subject to the provisions of the act when such parties violate the terms of either the act or the particular association's declaration or bylaws.6 See Grey v. Coastal States Holding Co., 22 Conn.App. 497, 505, 578 A.2d 1080, cert. denied, 216 Conn. 817, 580 A.2d 57 (1990). The defendant has not raised a counterclaim invoking the provisions of § 47-278, but rather relies on the statute as a defense to paying the common...
  • Get Started for Free
2 books & journal articles
  • 3.07 Designation of the Use of the General Common Elements by the Council of Co-owners
    • United States
    • South Carolina Community Association Law: Condominiums and Homeowners Associations (SCBar) South Carolina Bar CLE
    ...699 (1974).[116] Makeever v. Lyle,125 Ariz. 384, 609 P.2d 1084 (1980).[117] The Arizona Act is similar to the SCHPA in scope and substance.[118] Makeever v. Lyle,125 Ariz. 384, 609 P.2d 1084, 1087 (1980). See also Grey v. Coastal States Holding Co., 578 A.2d 1080 (Conn.App. 1990) (air space above units constituted common elements and could not be appropriated to exclusive use of only some unit owners).[119] Makeever v. Lyle,125 Ariz. 384, 609 P.2d 1084,Burch, 116 Ohio App.3d 555, 688 N.E.2d 1053 (1996); Sawko v. Dominion Plaza One Condominium Ass'n No. I-A, 578 N.E.2d 621 (Ill.App. 1991); Grey v. Coastal States Holding Co., 578 A.2d 1080 (Conn.App. 1990); Preston v. Bass, 680 S.W.2d 115 (Ark.App. 1984); Cameron v. MacDonell, 659 S.W.2d 911 (Tex.Civ.App. 1983); Makeever v. Lyle, 125 Ariz. 384, 609 P.2d 1084 (1980); Grimes v. Moreland, 41 Ohio Misc....
  • Chapter 6 THE COMMON ELEMENTS
    • United States
    • Common Interest Communities in North Carolina (NCBA) North Carolina Bar Association
    ...These provisions are fully enforceable in North Carolina. See infra § 15, Architectural Control. Courts have enjoined owners who have expanded their units without obtaining the proper permission. See Grey v. Coastal States Holding Co., 22 Conn. App. 497 (1990) (confirming trial court injunction entered against owner requiring owner to restore unit to original condition after expanding the unit boundaries without unanimous consent of unit owners).[83] N.C.G.S. § 47C-3-102(a)(6) allows...
4 provisions
  • Conn. Gen. Stat. § 47-278 Cause of Action to Enforce Chapter, Declaration Or Bylaws. Attorney's Fees and Costs. Alternative Dispute Resolution. Hearings Before Executive Board
    • United States
    • Connecticut General Statutes 2025 Edition Title 47. Land and Land Titles Chapter 828. Common Interest Ownership Act Part IV. Protection of Purchasers
    ...History: Amended by P.A. 21-0169, S. 4 of the Connecticut Acts of the 2021 Regular Session, eff. 7/12/2021.Amended by P.A. 11-0195, S. 4 of the the 2011 Regular Session, eff. 10/1/2011.Amended by P.A. 09-0225, S. 43 of the the 2009 Regular Session, eff. 7/1/2010. Cite as: Conn. Gen. Stat. § 47-278 Source: (P.A. 83-474, S. 79, 96; P.A. 95-187, S. 26; P.A. 09-225, S. 43; P.A. 11-195, S. 4.) Case note: Cited. 237 Conn. 123 . Cited. 22 Conn.App. 497 ; 38 Conn.App....
  • Conn. Gen. Stat. § 47-212 Remedies to Be Liberally Administered
    • United States
    • Connecticut General Statutes 2025 Edition Title 47. Land and Land Titles Chapter 828. Common Interest Ownership Act Part I. General Provisions and Applicability
    ... good a position as if the other party had fully performed, provided consequential, special or punitive damages may not be awarded except as specifically provided in this chapter or by other rule of law. (b) Any right or obligation declared by this chapter is enforceable by judicial proceeding. Cite as: Conn. Gen. Stat. § 47-212 Source: (P.A. 83-474, S. 13, 96.) Case note: Cited. 237 Conn. 123 . Cited. 22 Conn.App. 497
  • Conn. Gen. Stat. § 47-236 Amendment of Declaration Or Bylaws
    • United States
    • Connecticut General Statutes 2025 Edition Title 47. Land and Land Titles Chapter 828. Common Interest Ownership Act Part II. Creation, Alteration and Termination of Common Interest Communities
    ...subsection. History: Amended by P.A. 21-0173, S. 5 of the Connecticut Acts of the 2021 Regular Session, eff. 7/1/2021.Amended by P.A. 10-0186, S. 21 of the February 2010 Regular Session, eff. 7/1/2010.Amended by P.A. 09-0225, S. 15 and 16 of the 2009 Reg. Sess., eff. 7/1/2010. Cite as: Conn. Gen. Stat. § 47-236 Source: (P.A. 83-474, S. 37, 96; P.A. 95-187, S. 12, 29; P.A. 04-132, S. 4; P.A. 09-225, S. 15, 16; P.A. 10-186, S. 21.) Case note: Cited. 22 Conn.App. 497
  • Conn. Gen. Stat. § 47-207 Supplemental General Principles of Law Applicable
    • United States
    • Connecticut General Statutes 2025 Edition Title 47. Land and Land Titles Chapter 828. Common Interest Ownership Act Part I. General Provisions and Applicability
    ...mistake, receivership, substantial performance, or other validating or invalidating cause supplement the provisions of this chapter, except to the extent inconsistent with this chapter. Cite as: Conn. Gen. Stat. § 47-207 Source: (P.A. 83-474, S. 8, 96.) Case note: Cited. 237 Conn. 123 . Cited. 22 Conn.App. 497 38 CA 420 ; 39 CA 736 . Although section provides that supplemental general principles of law are applicable in interpreting provisions of Common Interest Ownership...