Bilanko v. Barclay Court Owners Ass'n
185 Wash. 2d 443
| Wash. | 2016Background
- Barclay Court Condominium amended its recorded declaration (Amendment No. 1) in 2008 to limit leasing to seven units; amendment was recorded Nov. 3, 2008.
- The Declaration required 67% vote to impose leasing restrictions but required 90% for changes to “uses”; the Declaration did not define “use.”
- Carolyn Bilanko purchased a unit in 2009; the recorded deed referenced the Declaration and Amendment No. 1.
- Bilanko sought to lease her unit in 2013 but was denied because seven units were already leased; she sought a hardship waiver and was refused.
- Bilanko sued in July 2014 alleging the amendment was invalid because it lacked the required vote to change a unit’s “use.” The association moved to dismiss as time-barred under RCW 64.34.264(2).
- Trial court initially granted the association’s motion, then (after a Court of Appeals decision in Club Envy) granted judgment for Bilanko; the Supreme Court granted direct review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether RCW 64.34.264(2)’s one-year limit bars a challenge to the validity of a recorded amendment brought more than one year after recording | Bilanko: The amendment was never validly passed (required higher vote) so the challenge is not time barred; akin to void acts that can be attacked anytime | Barclay Court: Statute plainly bars challenges to an amendment’s legal validity more than one year after recording; amendment was at most voidable, so the one-year bar applies | The one-year time bar applies; Bilanko’s 2014 challenge to a 2008 recorded amendment is time barred |
Key Cases Cited
- Club Envy of Spokane, LLC v. Ridpath Tower Condo. Ass'n, 184 Wn. App. 593 (Wash. Ct. App.) (court of appeals held fraudulently recorded amendments may be challenged outside one-year bar)
- S. Tacoma Way, LLC v. State, 169 Wn.2d 118 ( Wash. 2010) (transactions beyond authority may be void and challengeable at any time)
- Twisp Mining & Smelting Co. v. Chelan Mining Co., 16 Wn.2d 264 (Wash. 1943) (corporate acts that merely fail statutory formalities are voidable, not void)
- Cost Mgmt. Servs., Inc. v. City of Lakewood, 178 Wn.2d 635 (Wash. 2013) (statutory time bars are legislative policy and generally respected; narrow equitable exceptions)
- Goodman v. Goodman, 128 Wn.2d 366 (Wash. 1995) (standard: review de novo whether claim is time barred)