277 A.3d 695
R.I.2022Background:
- Two-unit condominium in Newport (Units 9 and 9A) with allocated interests of 67% (Unit 9) and 33% (Unit 9A); declaration/by-laws required board approval for structural/exterior changes and specified amendment rules.
- In March 2006 the declarants (the Stengels) recorded a First Amendment defining the Board of Directors as the owners of Units 9 and 9A (a two‑member board) and requiring 100% unit‑owner approval for certain alterations.
- The Antons purchased Unit 9A after the amendment; the Houzes purchased Unit 9 in May 2017 and later began renovations, asserting unilateral authority based on allocated interest.
- The Antons obtained a TRO prohibiting unilateral exterior/common‑element changes; the Houzes proceeded with landscaping/renovations, and a contractor removed additional bushes and a tree while the TRO was in effect.
- Superior Court granted declaratory and injunctive relief to the Antons, held Mr. Houze in civil contempt for violating the TRO, and awarded the Antons approximately $230,121 in attorneys’ fees; both parties appealed.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants’ challenge to the 2006 First Amendment was timely under § 34‑36.1‑2.17(b) | Anton: the amendment is valid; challenge is untimely | Houze: amendment is void ab initio as inconsistent with the Act, so limitation does not apply | Held: challenge is time‑barred under § 34‑36.1‑2.17(b); amendment not void ab initio; counterclaims untimely |
| Whether the First Amendment’s two‑member board violated the Condominium Act | Anton: two‑member board is authorized by the recorded amendment and binding on later purchasers | Houze: § 34‑36.1‑3.03(f) requires a three‑member board; amendment conflicts with Act | Held: Court affirmed denial of defendants’ challenge but did so on statute‑of‑limitations grounds and did not find the amendment void ab initio |
| Whether trial justice erred in finding Mr. Houze in civil contempt for removing landscaping in violation of the TRO | Anton: Mr. Houze intentionally caused unauthorized removal, violating TRO | Houze: removal was a contractor’s mistake and he substantially complied | Held: contempt finding affirmed; trial justice’s credibility and factual findings supported by clear and convincing evidence |
| Whether awarding attorneys’ fees was erroneous (and whether arbitration barred fees) | Anton: fees recoverable under statute and declaration; arbitration waived by defendants | Houze: raised justiciable questions; arbitration clause required arbitration | Held: fee award affirmed as not an abuse of discretion; defendants waived arbitration and fees are authorized by statute and declaration |
Key Cases Cited
- America Condominium Association, Inc. v. IDC, Inc., 844 A.2d 117 (R.I. 2004) (unanimity requirement can render an amendment void ab initio; discussed consumer‑protection purpose of amendment rules)
- Bilanko v. Barclay Court Owners Association, 375 P.3d 591 (Wash. 2016) (persuasive authority holding an amendment not void ab initio where no fraud, public‑policy violation, or excess of authority occurred)
- Shillitani v. United States, 384 U.S. 364 (U.S. 1966) (courts have inherent power to enforce compliance with orders through civil contempt)
- Harris v. Evans, 250 A.3d 553 (R.I. 2021) (appellate deference to trial justice’s contempt factfinding and credibility determinations)
- America Condominium Association, Inc. v. Mardo, 270 A.3d 612 (R.I. 2022) (standard for awarding attorneys’ fees under condominium statutes and related agreements)