Lovering v. Seabrook Island Property Owners Association
South Carolina Supreme Court
352 S.E.2d 707 (1987)
- Written by Mary Phelan D'Isa, JD
Facts
Condominium-unit owners (plaintiffs) sued the condominium association and the developer (defendants) to challenge the validity of a special assessment imposed by the association to pay for bridge repairs and a beach-renourishment project. The assessment was based on the association’s calculation of the value received by each condominium-unit owner from the repairs and the completed renourishment, notwithstanding a provision in the bylaws that adjustments to annual maintenance charges had to be based on the property’s assessed value as fixed by the tax assessor. The association considered but rejected a plan to finance the costs of the repairs and the renourishment, The trial court granted summary judgment for the association and the developer. The court of appeals reversed after finding that the association’s actions were ultra vires (i.e., unlawful). The association and the developer appealed, arguing that the association’s power to levy the special assessment was an implied or incidental power of its authority under the condominium’s bylaws to maintain and preserve the amenities and values of the development and, alternatively, that the assessment was a permissible adjustment to its annual maintenance charges.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 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.