Donald Leo v. Diana Court Owners Association
49574-1
| Wash. Ct. App. | Oct 24, 2017Background
- Diana Court is a 1975 condominium governed by a Declaration that (1) requires bylaws for Diana Court to be adopted by an affirmative vote of a majority of Diana Court unit owners (Paragraph 11) and (2) makes Diana Court owners members of VVRMA and bound by VVRMA bylaws (Paragraph 21).
- VVRMA is a multi-condominium association for Vista Village; it adopted amended bylaws in 2015 (the "2015 amendments") without Diana Court’s board approval.
- The 2015 amendments redefined certain carports as limited common areas and shifted maintenance/repair obligations (and related assessments) onto the individual unit owners assigned those limited common areas.
- Leo (a Diana Court unit owner) sued for declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing the 2015 amendments were invalid and VVRMA lacked authority under the Declaration and statutes to charge him for limited-common-area repairs.
- The trial court denied Leo’s motion for partial summary judgment and entered final judgment dismissing his claims; the Court of Appeals reversed, vacated final judgment, and awarded Leo attorney fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of 2015 VVRMA bylaw amendments affecting Diana Court | 2015 amendments are invalid because Paragraph 11 requires bylaws administering Diana Court to be adopted by a majority of Diana Court unit owners, which did not occur | Paragraph 21 binds Diana Court owners to VVRMA bylaws, so VVRMA amendments apply regardless of Diana Court board approval | Court: 2015 amendments invalid as to Diana Court because Paragraph 11 controls adoption; VVRMA bylaws affecting Diana Court require majority Diana Court owner approval |
| Authority to assess costs for limited common areas | Declaration does not require limited-common-area assessments against benefiting units; therefore RCW 64.34.360(3) does not permit charging only benefitted units | VVRMA bylaws (2015 amendments) purport to impose maintenance/assessment duties on assigned unit owners | Court: RCW 64.34.360(3) allows assessments only if declaration requires it; Diana Court Declaration contains no such provision, so VVRMA cannot impose individual limited-common-area assessments |
| Trial court entry of final judgment after denying plaintiff's summary judgment motion | Leo argued the denial effectively disposed of his claims and sought final judgment | Defendants relied on trial court discretion; no written CR 54(b) findings were made | Court: Trial court erred to enter final judgment without proper basis; appellate court vacated the final judgment and reached merits in interests of justice |
| Attorney fees on appeal | Leo sought fees under RCW 64.34.455 as prevailing party | Defendants sought fees under other statutes; Diana Court sought RCW 4.84.185 | Court: Leo awarded fees under RCW 64.34.455; Diana Court not entitled to fees on appeal under RCW 4.84.185 |
Key Cases Cited
- Dowler v. Clover Park Sch. Dist. No. 400, 172 Wn.2d 471 (discussing de novo review of summary judgment)
- Lake v. Woodcreek Homeowners Ass’n, 169 Wn.2d 516 (relation of HPRA and WCA; declarant intent and applicability)
- Wilkinson v. Chiwawa Cmtys. Ass’n, 180 Wn.2d 241 (declaration interpretation as a question of law and contract principles)
- Clare v. Saberhagen Holdings, Inc., 129 Wn. App. 599 (when questions of fact may be decided as a matter of law)
- Hanna v. Margitan, 193 Wn. App. 596 (RCW 4.84.185 requires written findings; appellate courts cannot make those findings)