Poser v. Lovett Square Townhomes Owners’ Association

The owners of two condominium units at Lovett Square condominiums (the owners) (plaintiffs) filed suit against the condominium association (the association) (defendant) to enjoin the collection of past-due maintenance assessments pending satisfaction of the owners’ alleged offsets against the assessments. The owners alleged that the association breached its duty to keep their roofs in good condition and that the owners spent their own money to repair their leaking roofs. The association counterclaimed for the past-due assessments. Numerous repairs and steps had been taken to fix the problem with the roofs. And when a majority of unit owners rejected a special assessment, unit owners with serious leakage problems were allowed to immediately repair their roofs at their own expense and be reimbursed later. The trial court, which ruled for the association, found that the owners’ right to offset the assessments was not abrogated but would accrue at some later date, preventing the owners from avoiding their ongoing obligation to timely pay their share of assessments. The trial court also found that (1) the roofing problems were the result of the defective design and construction; (2) the association did not fail or refuse to keep the roofs in good order, condition, and repair; (3) the association took all reasonable and usual maintenance measures; (4) the roofing problems were not the result of any failure to maintain the roofs; and (5) the association’s duty to maintain the common areas was independent of its right to collect maintenance funds, which was supported by the declaration and state condominium law. The trial court also found that because the association acted reasonably regarding the roof issues, the owners were not entitled to avoid maintenance assessments. The owners appealed and alleged a conflict between the trial court’s finding that there were serious leakage problems and its finding that the owners’ obligation to pay maintenance assessments was independent of the association’s duty to maintain the common areas and alleged that reasonable action was no substitute for the association’s duty to properly maintain the common areas.