Metroclub Condominium Ass'n v. 201-59 North Eighth Street Associates
47 A.3d 137
Pa. Super. Ct.2012Background
- Declarant recorded a condominium declaration for MetroClub in 2005, creating a PUCA-governed condominium and reserving control over unallocated parking spaces while Declarant owned units.
- Declarant retains control of 41 unallocated parking spaces; 34 of these are leased by Declarant, with income retained by Declarant.
- Declarant also maintained control of the Association’s executive board during a Declarant Control Period under PUCA § 3303 until around June 5, 2007, when 75% of units were sold and the period ended.
- After the Declarant Control Period, the Association’s board was elected by unit owners, but Declarant continued to own 17 units, enabling it to maintain some control over allocations of unallocated spaces per the Declaration.
- Association sought declaratory relief arguing Declarant must cede control of unallocated spaces to the Association once the Declarant Control Period ended, alleging PUCA § 3303 requires this shift and that Section 5.03 is void or unconscionable.
- The trial court granted Declarant judgment on the pleadings, rejecting Association’s claims and holding that Section 5.03 permits Declarant to retain and lease unallocated spaces as long as Declarant owns any unit, and PUCA provisions defer to the Declaration for allocation of limited common elements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Declarant may retain control of unallocated parking spaces after Declarant Control Period. | Association contends control must vest in the Association once the control period ends. | Declarant argues Section 5.03 and PUCA §§ 3205/3209 allow continued allocation and leasing by Declarant while any units are owned. | Affirmed: Declarant may continue to control and lease unallocated parking spaces. |
| Whether the Declaration is ambiguous or violates PUCA by permitting Declarant control after Declarant Control Period. | Association claims inconsistency and ambiguity render the Declaration invalid or unenforceable. | Declaration and PUCA provisions expressly authorize continued Declarant control and allocation of spaces. | Affirmed: no ambiguity; PUCA permits Declarant control under the Declaration. |
| Whether Declarant waived its right to allocate remaining spaces by not acting before the Declarant Control Period ended. | Failure to allocate implies waiver and vesting of control in the Association. | No waiver; rights persisted under Section 5.03 for as long as Declarant owned any Unit. | Affirmed: no waiver; rights under 5.03 persisted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wrenfield Homeowners Association, Inc. v. DeYoung, 410 Pa. Super. 621 (1991) (declarant-not-for PUCA; declaration as contract context discussed)
- Country Classics at Morgan Hill Homeowners’ Association, Inc. v. Country Classics at Morgan Hill, LLC, 780 F. Supp. 2d 367 (E.D. Pa. 2011) (contracts and PUCA interplay with general contract law concepts)
- Helpin v. Trustees of Univ. of Pennsylvania, 969 A.2d 601 (Pa. Super. 2009) (contract formation elements; enforceability considerations)
- Condominium Ass’n Court of Old Swedes v. Stein-O’Brien, 973 A.2d 475 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (PUCA interpretation and declaration/bylaws precedence)
- Barrick v. Holy Spirit Hosp. of the Sisters of Christian Charity, 32 A.3d 800 (Pa. Super. 2011) (contractual interpretation and declaration provisions context)
- Dietz v. Chase Home Finance, LLC, 2012 Pa. Super. 79 (2012) (summary-judgment standard; contract-related reasoning cited)
- Barnett v. SKF USA, Inc., 38 A.3d 770 (Pa. 2012) (standard for appellate review of summary-judgment rulings)