Pilgrim Place Condominium Association v. KRE Properties, Inc.

666 A.2d 500 (1995)

From our private database of 45,900+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Pilgrim Place Condominium Association v. KRE Properties, Inc.

Maine Supreme Judicial Court
666 A.2d 500 (1995)

Facts

Pilgrim Place, Inc. (Pilgrim) created a condominium by recording a condominium declaration that created 48 units, requiring the declarant to build 24 units immediately, with a set control period to build the remaining 24 additional units. The declaration provided that each unit owner, including the declarant, owned an undivided one forty-eighth interest in the common elements. The declaration also created the Pilgrim Place Condominium Association (the association) (plaintiff) and empowered the association to make common-expense assessments for which the unit owners and the declarant were liable for their pro rata shares. The association could modify the pro rata share assessed against each unit owner only after the declarant’s control period expired. Pilgrim’s interest was foreclosed, and KRE Properties, Inc. (KRE) (defendant) acquired title at the foreclosure sale to units 25-48, which were unbuilt, and Pilgrim’s rights, subject to any unpaid assessments. When Pilgrim controlled the association, assessments were made according to the declaration based on 48 units. From the time KRE took control until the expiration of its development rights, KRE built 16 units and paid no assessments on any of its unbuilt units. The association filed suit against KRE to collect assessments on KRE’s unbuilt units from the time it acquired them at the foreclosure sale. The trial and superior courts ruled for the association. KRE appealed, arguing that the state condominium act prevented the association from levying assessments on unbuilt units. Nothing in the state condominium act compelled or prohibited an assessment against unbuilt units, and the act recognized that an obligation to pay assessments could arise before physical units were constructed and also prohibited discrimination favoring the declarant regarding the allocation of common-expense assessments.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Roberts, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 736,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 736,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,900 briefs, keyed to 984 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 736,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 45,900 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership