138 So. 3d 317
Ala. Civ. App.2013Background
- Magnolia Corner OA appeals a negligence verdict in favor of the Murrays for water intrusion into their condo basement.
- Murrays cross-appeal on breach of contract, fraudulent concealment, negligence, and declaratory judgment regarding amendment validity.
- The Magnolia Corner property is a condominium with a house (Building Two) and a surrounding L-shaped building; the 2003 amendment redefined ownership interests and limited common elements.
- The amendment increased the house’s square footage and ownership share, and limited the stairwell patio as a limited common element.
- Flooding began in 2005 and recurred through 2009; Magnolia Corner OA funded water extraction/remediation efforts.
- Judgment awarded $20,728.67 to Murrays on the water-intrusion claim; declaratory-judgment issue about surplus funds was partially resolved; cross-appeals followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty origin for water intrusion negligence | Murrays: OA owed duty to maintain common elements under Act and declaration | Magnolia Corner OA: duty limited to not channel surface water onto others | OA owed duty to maintain common elements; standard negligence applied |
| Contributory negligence and mitigation | Murrays not contributorily negligent; mitigate damages contested | Murrays failed to maintain drains; should have mitigated | Evidence supports no contributory negligence; no mitigation failure by Murrays |
| Fraudulent concealment relating to amendment | Murrays: OA duty to disclose amendment; concealment induced reliance | OA had no duty to disclose to non-seller; no concealment by OA | No duty to disclose; no fraudulent concealment by OA; relief denied |
| Validity/timeliness of challenge to amendment | Murrays seek void-ab-initio on amendment; tolling due to concealment | Statutory time-bar governs challenges; concealment not proven | Challenge time-barred; amendment valid; tolling not established |
Key Cases Cited
- Kellis v. Estate of Schnatz, 983 So.2d 408 (Ala.Civ.App.2007) (accurate application of rule-of-law on related issues)
- Farmers Ins. Co. v. Price-Williams Assocs., Inc., 873 So.2d 252 (Ala.Civ.App.2003) (quoting and applying discovery and accrual principles)
- Ex parte Cash, 624 So.2d 576 (Ala.1993) (law of legal standard for reviewing legal conclusions)