McLafferty v. Council for the Ass'n of Owners of Condominium No. One, Inc.
148 A.3d 802
Pa. Super. Ct.2016Background
- Washington Mews Condominium (created under the Unit Property Act (UPA) in 1967) adopted a recorded Declaration and a recorded Code of Regulations (Code); Council was empowered to promulgate the Code.
- The Original Declaration and UPA permitted amendments in some circumstances but were silent as to the vote percentage required to adopt non‑unit‑interest amendments to the Declaration.
- The Code expressly permitted amendment of the Code itself by owners holding a majority (51%) of the votes; the Code did not expressly state it applied to amendments of the Declaration.
- In February 2013 owners approved an Amended and Restated Declaration by a simple majority; the Amended Declaration removed the UPA and subjected the condominium to the Uniform Condominium Act (UCA) and imposed new use/restriction rules (e.g., rental limits, fines, eviction procedures).
- Plaintiffs sued seeking declaratory relief, arguing the Amendment required greater owner approval (either unanimous or 67% under the UCA) and that the Code’s majority‑vote provision did not apply to Declaration amendments.
- The trial court granted judgment on the pleadings for defendants, concluding the Code’s 51% majority rule governed Declaration amendments; the Superior Court reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a simple majority could adopt the 2013 Amended and Restated Declaration | McLafferty: Code’s majority rule does not apply to Declaration; UCA §3219 requires 67% (or unanimous for changes to unit uses) and applies retroactively to this post‑UCA amendment | Defendants: UPA/Declaration and Code read together permit amendment by majority; UCA does not apply retroactively to invalidate existing procedures | Held: The Code’s 51% amendment rule applies only to the Code itself, not the Declaration; because old documents were silent on the voting percentage, the UCA §3219 governs and 51% was insufficient |
| Whether UCA §3102(a.1) retroactively applies §3219 to this condominium | McLafferty: Yes—amendment occurred after UCA so §3219 applies where it does not invalidate old law | Defendants: Applying §3219 would conflict with existing Code provision and thus not apply retroactively | Held: §3102(a.1) applies where it does not invalidate existing provisions; because there was no valid old‑law procedure governing Declaration amendment here, §3219 governs |
| Whether unanimous consent was required because the Amendment changed unit uses | McLafferty: The Amendment restricted unit uses (e.g., rental limits), so §3219(d) requires unanimous consent | Defendants: The Amendment’s substance did not trigger the unanimous‑consent requirement or otherwise violate the UCA | Held: Court emphasizes §3219(d) requires unanimous consent to change uses; whether this Amendment does so is a substantive question for further proceedings (remanded) |
| Whether defendants could convert the condominium from UPA to UCA by a simple majority | McLafferty: Conversion affects statutory regime and removal from UPA required unanimous or broader approvals; simple majority insufficient | Defendants: Amendment properly adopted under old procedures | Held: Conversion implicates statutory requirements for revocation/removal; simple majority could not accomplish removal from UPA under controlling provisions—further proceedings required |
Key Cases Cited
- Southwestern Energy Prod. Co. v. Forest Res., LLC, 83 A.3d 177 (Pa. Super. 2013) (standards for judgment on the pleadings)
- Pocono Summit Realty, LLC v. Ahmad Amer, LLC, 52 A.3d 261 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standard of review for declaratory judgment rulings)
- Welteroth v. Harvey, 912 A.2d 863 (Pa. Super. 2006) (contract interpretation is a question of law and reviewed de novo)
- Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Wickett, 763 A.2d 813 (Pa. 2000) (orders granting or denying declaratory relief have the force and effect of a final judgment)