Carroll v. El Dorado Estates Division No. Two Association, Inc.
Alaska Supreme Court
680 P.2d 1158 (1984)
- Written by Mary Phelan D'Isa, JD
Facts
The El Dorado Estates Division Number Two Association, Inc. (the association) (plaintiff) filed suit against James Carroll and two other condominium owners (collectively, Carroll) (defendants), seeking an injunction to enforce an amended bylaw prohibiting pets. The bylaws originally permitted pets when the condominium’s declaration was filed in 1976, but the bylaws were amended in 1979 when 20 of 23 unit owners voted in person or by proxy to amend the bylaws to prohibit pets. Carroll conceded noncompliance with the amended bylaw but argued that it was invalid because the association failed to give adequate notice of the purpose of the annual meeting at which the amendment was adopted. The trial court granted summary judgment for the association. Carroll appealed, making the same inadequate-notice argument. Specifically, Carroll argued that because the notice of the annual meeting did not indicate that a pet ban would be considered, the notice was not sufficient. The association argued that even if the notice was not sufficient, Carroll’s attendance by proxy constituted a waiver of any objection.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
