O'Buck v. Cottonwood Village Condominium Association, Inc.
Alaska Supreme Court
750 P.2d 813 (1988)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
The O’Bucks (plaintiff) owned a unit in the Cottonwood Village condominium complex (Cottonwood) (defendant). Cottonwood was wired for television service via antennae. The O’Bucks had four televisions and cited the antenna as an important factor in their purchase of the unit. Subsequently, Cottonwood found that one of the causes of numerous leaks to its roofs in the complex was the presence of the antennae on the roofs and foot traffic related to the antennae. To prevent further leaks, Cottonwood removed all antennae from roofs and adopted a rule prohibiting residents form mounting any new antennae. Cottonwood compensated the O’Bucks for the removal of their antenna. In lieu of television service through antennae, Cottonwood paid for the installation of cable in the O’Bucks’ unit for one of their televisions. However, the O’Bucks had three other televisions and it would have cost them $10 per month each to set them up with cable. The O’Bucks brought this suit seeking damages and an injunction of the new Cottonwood rule prohibiting antennae on the roof. The superior court ruled in favor of Cottonwood. The O’Bucks appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Rabinowitz, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 796,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 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.