Town Houses at Bonnet Shores Condominium Ass'n v. Langlois, 45 A.3d 577

Langlois owns unit 3 at Townhouses at Bonnet Shores Condominiums since 2003 and rents it to tenants; two leases occurred in 2010 (McLaughlin and Steinback) and a third proposed lease to Fang was not approved by the board.
Fang and his wife moved in despite lack of board approval, creating three tenancies in the unit within one year.
Board notified Langlois that Fang’s lease would violate Article V, section 5.2(b) and would not be approved; Fang and wife nonetheless moved in.
Association filed a declaratory judgment seeking a finding that Fang’s lease violated the declaration; bench trial held February 14, 2011, with evidence that two leases already existed.
Trial judge interpreted 5.2(b) to mean no more than two leases per calendar year, thus Fang’s lease would be a third; judgment for plaintiff entered February 28, 2011.
Appeal argued ambiguity in the declaration and improper interpretation; Court initially considers mootness but finds a narrow exception exists due to ongoing livelihood interest of Langlois in renting to a third tenant.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Fang lease violated 5.2 of the declaration	Plaintiff (association) argues unit may not be leased more than twice per calendar year	Langlois argues 5.2(b) is ambiguous and the two existing leases do not foreclose a third	No; third lease would violate 5.2 as written; two leases already exhausted annual limit
Whether the case is moot and whether exception applies	mootness dismissed because controversy affects livelihood	Fang issue moot but dispute remains about future third leases	Case not moot due to ongoing livelihood issue; exception applicable to address central issue
whether declaration is ambiguous and should be read under contract-interpretation rules	Plain language supports two-per-year limit	Declaration ambiguous; should be read to support defendant’s view	Declaration unambiguous; language clearly limits to two rentals per calendar year
whether the board’s authority to approve/deny leases affects outcome	Board has authority to approve/deny per 5.2(e) and related provisions	Interpretation should consider board discretion	Not necessary to resolve separately; relies on clear 5.2 limits that third lease violates

Artesani v. Glenwood Park Condominium Association, 750 A.2d 961 (R.I. 2000) (condominium declarations control administration and interpretation)
Bliss Mine Road Condominium Association v. Nationwide Property and Casualty Insurance Co., 11 A.3d 1078 (R.I. 2010) (contract-interpretation approach to declarations; plain meaning governs when unambiguous)
Arnica Mutual Insurance Co. v. Streicker, 583 A.2d 550 (R.I. 1990) (terms of declaration read in context; avoid isolation of words)
Downey v. Carcieri, 996 A.2d 1144 (R.I. 2010) (great deference to Superior Court declaratory judgments; factual findings reviewed for clear error)