Scott v. Fall Line Condo. Ass'n, BUSINESS AND CONSUMER COURT DOCKET NO. BCD-CV-17-26
| Decision Date | 08 June 2018 |
| Docket Number | BUSINESS AND CONSUMER COURT DOCKET NO. BCD-CV-17-26 |
| Parties | KIMBERLY B. SCOTT, et al., Plaintiffs/ Counterclaim-Defendants, v. FALL LINE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, et al., Defendants/ Counterclaim-Plaintiffs. |
| Court | Maine Superior Court |
CUMBERLAND, ss.
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs/ Counterclaim-Defendants Kimberly Scott and Thomas Scott's (collectively "the Scotts") motion for partial summary judgment and Defendants/ Counterclaim Plaintiffs Fall Line Condominium Association (the "Association"), Leonard Amburgey, and Neal Weinstein's (collectively "Defendants") motion for summary judgment. Each party opposes the other's motion. Pursuant to the discretion granted it under M.R. Civ. P. 7(b)(7), the Court rules on the motions without hearing.
On February 28, 2017, Mr. Weinstein filed a statement of claim on behalf of the Association naming the Scotts in a small claims action in Rumford District Court, No. RUMDC-SC-2017-20 (the "small claims action"). (Id. ¶¶ 15-16.) On March 1, 2017, the Scotts filed a complaint against the Association, Mr. Amburgey, and Mr. Weinstein in Rumford District Court. (Id. ¶ 17.) On April 20, 2017, the District Court entered an order consolidating the two cases, and this Court accepted transfer of the consolidated case on June 5, 2017. (Id. ¶ 19.)
The Scotts voluntarily dismissed several claims against the Association and all claims against Mr. Amburgey personally; the Association, Mr. Amburgey, and Mr. Weinstein thereafter made a request for an award of attorney fees as the prevailing parties on those claims. (Id. ¶¶ 21-22.) This Court dismissed the claims but denied, without prejudice, the request for an award of attorney fees. (Id. ¶ 23.) The Scotts subsequently filed their Amended Complaint on September 26, 2017, their operative pleading in this matter, reflecting the dismissed claims. (Id. ¶ 24.) The Association and Mr. Weinstein filed an Answer on October 10, 2017. (Id. ¶ 25.) The Association's, Mr. Amburgey's, and Mr. Weinstein's Counterclaim against the Scotts filed in response to the Scott's original complaint remains pending. (Id.)
The Fall Line Condominiums are comprised of 128 condominium units adjacent to the Sunday River ski resort in Newry, Maine. (Joint S.M.F. ¶ 1.) The Fall Line Declaration of Condominium (the "Declaration") was adopted on November 19, 1985 and later recorded in the Oxford County Registry of Deeds in Book 1356, page 65. (Id. ¶ 2.) Fall Line is operated by the Association, of which all record owners of condominium units at Fall Line ("unit owners") are members pursuant to the Bylaws of the Association (the "Bylaws"). (Id. ¶ 3.)
Fall Line is governed by the Bylaws and the Declaration.1 (Id. ¶¶ 6-7.) The Association has also promulgated "Rules and Regulations Applicable to All Unit Owners" ("rules and regulations"), first in November 1985 and most recently amended in December 2017. (Id. ¶¶ 8-10.) The Scotts contest only the most recent amendments to the rules and regulations in this lawsuit; however, pursuant to their legal theory, all of the rules and regulations would be void.
Mr. Amburgey owns a unit at Fall Line and is President of the Association and a member of the Board. (Id. ¶ 11.) Mr. Weinstein likewise owns a unit at Fall Line and is a member of theBoard. (Id. ¶ 12.) The Scotts are also Fall Line unit owners and therefore members of the Association. (Id. ¶¶ 13-14.)
At essence, the issues presented on these cross-motions for summary judgment can be boiled down to two principle disputes: whether the Scotts paid their Association dues in full and/or on time (the "payment dispute") and whether the Association has promulgated rules and regulations consistent with the Bylaws (the "rules and regulations dispute"). Claims relating to both disputes are reflected in both the Amended Complaint and the Counterclaim.
The Association is authorized to assess and collect quarterly dues from unit owners. See 33 M.R.S. § 1603-115(b). (See Def's Supp'g S.M.F. ¶ 29.) The Scotts have been assessed dues thirty-five times since they purchased their unit in August 2008; they have been late in paying those dues twenty-two times. (Id.) As of December 2, 2016, the Scotts owed the Association $1,700.87. (Id. ¶ 33.) The Scotts dispute this balance only to the extent that it includes an 18% interest charge on a late payment; whether the Association is allowed to charge interest on late payments is an issue in this case. (Pl's Supp'g S.M.F. ¶¶ 20-24; Def's Opp'g S.M.F. ¶¶ 20-24.) On December 8, 2016, Ms. Scott reached out to Rebecca Record of The Tax Loft, the Association's vendor for invoicing and collections, to request a full accounting and explanation of the finance charges assessed against the Scotts due to their late payments, and Ms. Scott assured Ms. Record that she would "be sending a check for $1,650 tomorrow." (Def's Supp'g S.M.F. ¶¶ 31-32.) The Scotts indeed issued a check to the Association dated December 8, 2016 for $1,650 (the "December Check"); however, the check was not received until January 5, 2017 and included the notation "Accord & Satisfaction for all outstanding invoice as of 12/8/16." (Id. ¶¶ 35-37.)
The Association refused to cash the December Check because the amount owed exceededthe amount reflected on the December Check and thus did not constitute accord and satisfaction of the amount owed. (Id. ¶ 38.) The Scotts admit that these may have been the Association's reasons for refusing to negotiate the December Check but deny that it was for less than what was actually owed. (See Pl's Opp'g S.M.F. ¶ 38.) Mr. Amburgey communicated the Association's refusal to accept the December Check to Ms. Scott via email on January 5, 2017 (the same day it was received); Ms. Scott responded the following day that another check "in full" would be forthcoming. (Def's Ex. R.) The Association thereafter received a second check from the Scotts in January 2017 (the "January Check"). (Def's Supp'g S.M.F. ¶ 39; Pl's Opp'g S.M.F. ¶ 39.) The January Check bore only Ms. Scott's name and was putatively signed by Ms. Scott, was undated, and included the notation "payment in full under protest." (Def's Supp'g S.M.F. ¶ 39; Pl's Opp'g S.M.F. ¶ 39.) The Association refused to cash this check as well because it was undated and included the notation "payment in full under protest;" the Association thus informed the Scotts that "neither check would be cashed" and that the matter had been "turned over for collection." (Def's Supp'g S.M.F. ¶ 42.)
On January 31, 2017, Mr. Weinstein sent a letter (the "collection letter") to the Scotts demanding $1,941.91, purportedly for the outstanding dues, additional accrued interest, and attorney fees. (Def's Supp'g S.M.F. ¶ 44, see Pl's Opp'g S.M.F ¶ 44.) Previously, based on the issue with the December Check and January Check, Mr. Amburgey had told the Scotts that they would be required to pay by money order, cashier's check, or credit card. (Def's Supp'g S.M.F. ¶ 43, see Pl's Opp'g S.M.F ¶ 43.) On February 1, 2017, the Scotts paid the Association $1,743.50 by credit card, which included $1,688.62 toward the amount owed to the Association and a credit card processing fee2 of $54.88. (Def's Supp'g S.M.F. ¶ 45.) The credit card processing fee iscommensurate with the fee charged by credit card companies. (Def's Opp'g S.M.F. ¶ 18.) The Association considered this amount insufficient, and thereafter filed its statement of claim in the small claims matter in order to recover $538.29, which reflected the outstanding interest balance of $38.29 and $500 in attorney fees for Mr. Weinstein. (Def's Supp'g S.M.F. ¶ 48; Pl's Opp'g S.M.F. ¶ 48; Joint Ex. F.)
For at least twenty-five years, it has been the Association's practice that the Board establishes or amends the Association rules and regulations as it deems necessary and appropriate. (Pl's Supp'g S.M.F. ¶ 1; see Joint S.M.F. ¶ 11.) It has likewise been the practice of the Board to have Association members in attendance at the Association's annual meeting ratify the Board's actions over the prior year, including all rules and regulations that the Board adopted and implemented. (Def's Supp'g S.M.F. ¶¶ 9-10.) This vote is merely a matter of good corporate practice and is unnecessary to validate the actions of the Board. (Id.) The Scotts do not contest that these ratification votes take place; however, because they assert that the Board's practice of establishing or amending rules and regulations is in contradiction of the Bylaws, the Scotts take the position that the ratification vote cannot redeem those rules and regulations. (See Pl's Supp'g S.M.F. ¶ 11 ()(emphasis added).)
This same protocol was followed by the Board with regard to what the Scotts label the "New Board Rules," a selective list of certain rules and regulations adopted by the Board in "recent years" that the Scotts object to because they see them as "consistent with the Board's my-way-or-the-highway attitude, and also draconian, unfair, and not properly implemented pursuant to the Association's [Bylaws]." (Pl's Supp'g S.M.F. ¶¶ 2, 5.) The Association denies that "New Board Rules" is an appropriate moniker, denies the accuracy of the Scotts' characterization of the so-called New Board Rules, and denies that some of the New Board Rules are currently in force or were ever adopted as they are listed in the Scott's statement of material facts. (Def's Opp'g S.M.F. ¶¶ 2, 5.) However, the Association admits that it adopts and amends rules "from time to time" and does not deny that it has done so in "recent years." (Def's Opp'g S.M.F. ¶ 2.) As a result of "confusion" caused by the Scott's litigation, the Board (but not the unit owners) took the additional action of unanimously...
To continue reading
Request your trial