Facts: Respondent Sandra Lake filed suit against petitioner Woodcreek Homeowners Association, which managed the condominium development Lake resided in, in the Superior Court for King County after Woodcreek Homeowners Association approved her neighbor’s request to construct an addition to his condominium that reduced the size of a common area without obtaining the unanimous consent of all condominium owners in the development. Lake asserted that this violated the Horizontal Property Regimes Act (Washington Revised Code §64.32), which requires that any amendment altering the undivided interest in common areas and facilities held by all owners obtain unanimous consent. The trial court granted Woodcreek Homeowners Association’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case, concluding that §64.32 permits the division of a common area and its combination with a condominium so long as majority support is obtained among owners. Upon appeal, the Washington Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision, holding that §64.32 only permits combining condominiums with other condominiums or combining common areas with other common areas. Woodcreek Homeowners Association appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of Washington.
Question(s): Does §64.32 bar the division of a condominium development’s common areas without unanimous consent?
Conclusion: Justice Fairhurst’s opinion for a unanimous Court ruled that while §64.32 protects owners’ property interests in common areas, this interest protected is a percentage interest rather than a specific value. Thus, although the addition changed the fair market value of each owner’s interest in the common areas, as the percentage assigned to Lake was not altered, unanimous consent was not required.
Docket No. 81873-8 (from Court of Appeals Division I Case No. 59211-4)
Petitioner: Woodcreek Homeowners Association
(Counsel: Scott Michael Barbara and Charles Edward Watts)
Respondent: Sandra Lake
(Counsel: Marianne Kathryn Jones, Mona Kathleen McPhee, and Christopher Brain)
Briefs:
- Answer to Petition for Review
- Appellant Brief
- Appellant Supplemental Brief in Coa
- Joinder in Supplemental Briefing
- Petition for Review of Clausing
- Petition for Review of Woodcreek
- Reply
- Respondent Clausing Brief
- Respondent Supplemental Brief in Coa
- Respondent Woodcreek Brief
- Supplemental Brief of Glen Clausing, Petitioner
- Supplemental Brief of Respondent Lake
Argument: Thursday, October 29, 2009 10:00am
[Source: TVW, http://tvw.org]
Audio: Washington Supreme Court
Decided: Thursday, April 15th, 2010
Prevailing Party: Woodcreek Homeowners Association (Petitioner)
Vote: 9-0
Citation: Pending
Court: Madsen1 Court (2010-)
Alexander
Johnson
Madsen
Sanders
Chambers
Owens
Fairhurst
(Majority)
Johnson
Stephens
Note: We post only slip opinion(s) as published at the time of the decision. Please consult Washington Reports printed volumes for the opinion(s) in their final form. Each opinion should appear next to the Justice who authored it.