Picerno v. 1400 Museum Park Condominium Association, 2011 IL App (1st) 103505

Picerno and Arias own corner units 2301 and 2310 on the 23rd floor of 1400 Museum Park, a 32-story Chicago condo building with a common hallway at that end.
Plaintiffs proposed to install a common front door between their units by enclosing part of the hallway, claiming the space was authorized by paragraph 11 of the condominium declaration.
The board rejected the proposal; plaintiffs sued for declaratory judgment, and the circuit court granted summary judgment in plaintiffs' favor, allowing unit combination and incorporation of hallway space as a private foyer.
The circuit court ordered the plaintiffs to proceed with the modification at their expense, with conditions including architectural reviews, insurance, escrow, and drafting an amendment to the declaration.
On appeal, the appellate court reversed, holding that Section 4(e) and the declaration protect all unit owners’ interests and that Section 31 does not authorize the hallway enclosure without unanimous owner consent; remanded for further proceedings with revised conditions.
The case was remanded to the circuit court for consistent enforcement of the Act and declaration, with directions to revise condition 5 to require consent of all unit owners and to proceed with the remaining conditions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does Section 31 authorize converting common hallway to a limited common element without all owners’ unanimous consent?	Picerno argues Section 31 permits unit combination and exclusive use of a portion of common elements when not necessary for others.	1400 Museum Park contends Section 31 allows only unit combinations not affecting overall ownership and must harmonize with Section 4(e) and the declaration.	No; Section 4(e) controls; Section 31 cannot override unanimous consent requirements.
Was the board’s fifth condition requiring written consent of all other unit owners on the floor within its authority?	Picerno asserts the board’s floor-wide consent requirement is excessive and not supported by the declaration or statute.	Board sought broad consent to protect all owners’ rights and ensure proper amendments.	Not adequate; unanimous consent of all unit owners is required, not just those on the floor.
Are the board’s other eight conditions reasonable to protect owners’ interests?	Picerno argues conditions are reasonable safeguards.	Board’s conditions are mostly reasonable to protect interests and enable lawful amendment.	Seven of eight conditions are reasonable; remand with revised fifth condition; continue with others under supervision.

Huskey v. Board of Managers of Condominiums of Edelweiss, Inc., 297 Ill. App. 3d 292 (1998) (unanimous consent required for changes in common elements; statutory harmony)
Stuewe v. Lauletta, 93 Ill. App. 3d 1029 (1981) (exclusive use of common elements requires proper amendment to declaration)
Sawko v. Dominion Plaza One Condominium Ass’n No. 1-A, 218 Ill. App. 3d 521 (1991) (exclusive use of portion of common elements requires unanimous consent; funding and rights issues)
Carney v. Donley, 261 Ill. App. 3d 1002 (1994) (unanimous approval required for changes to common areas that affect ownership interests)
Stuewe v. Lauletta, 93 Ill. App. 3d 1029 (1981) ((same as above))
Knolls Condominium Ass’n v. Harms, 202 Ill. 2d 450 (2002) (harmonization of statutes relating to condominiums; specific controls over general)
Schaumburg State Bank v. Bank of Wheaton, 197 Ill. App. 3d 713 (1990) (statutes relating to same subject read harmoniously to avoid inconsistency)