Charles Burns v. Moorland Farm Condominium Association, 86 A.3d 354

Moorland Farm Condominium in Newport comprises 33 units across 10 buildings with Phase I containing larger B Units and smaller A Units; Phases II and III contain only A Units.
The association's management committee levied four special assessments (2006–2008) to repair decks, allocating higher shares to Phase I B Units and some Phase I A Units than to Phase II/III units.
Plaintiffs, owners or trustees of Phase II/III units, challenged the assessments as illegal, contending decks and entry courts are not common elements or limited common elements.
The Superior Court judge held the decks were part of individual units and declared the four assessments illegal, ordering reassessment to the benefited Phase I unit owners.
The association appealed, arguing indispensable parties were missing and trial error occurred in evaluating whether decks were common elements, plus issues about expert affidavit and Rule 60(b) relief.
The Rhode Island Supreme Court vacated the Superior Court judgment, holding the absence of Phase I unit owners as indispensable parties rendered the declaratory judgment void and remanded to dismiss without prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Were Phase I deck owners indispensable parties to the declaratory action?	Plaintiffs contend Phase I owners would bear reallocated costs and must be joined.	Association argues only the association is necessary since relief affects the association's allocations.	Indispensable parties were missing; judgment void.
Are Moorland Farm decks common elements or part of individual units?	Deck repairs should be charged to the unit owners, not as common expenses.	Decks were common elements eligible for common expenses.	Issue rendered moot by void judgment; merits not reached.
Did the trial court err in sanctioning the association under Rule 11 for Rule 60(b) proceedings?	Sanctions were proper for improper delay; rule 11 violation supported.	Rule 60(b) relief had a factual and legal basis; sanctions improper.	Sanction vacated; Rule 11 sanction improper.

Abbatematteo v. State, 694 A.2d 738 (R.I. 1997) (mandatory joinder in declaratory actions; absent interests can invalidate relief)
In re City of Warwick, 197 A.2d 287 (R.I. 1964) (join all affected municipal board members; absence defeats binding effect)
Thompson v. Town Council of Westerly, 487 A.2d 499 (R.I. 1985) (declaratory judgments should terminate controversy; nonparties can affect relief)
Sullivan v. Chafee, 703 A.2d 748 (R.I. 1997) (failure to join entire council fatal to declaratory action)
Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 383 (U.S. Supreme Court 1990) (Rule 11 sanctions considered collateral to merits; improper filing can be sanctioned separately)
Epstein v. Villa Dorado Condominium Association, Inc., 316 S.W.3d 457 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010) (absence of non-elevator-access owners can undermine declaratory relief)
Abbatematteo v. State, 694 A.2d 738 (R.I. 1997) (see above)