Stuewe v. Lauletta

418 N.E.2d 138 (1981)

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

Stuewe v. Lauletta

Illinois Appellate Court
418 N.E.2d 138 (1981)


A group of individual condominium unit owners (the challenging unit owners) (plaintiffs) at Les Chateau condominium filed suit against the Laulettas, who were individual condominium-unit purchasers, and Bern Builders, Inc. (Bern), the condominium developer (defendants), to challenge a lease and easement granted by Bern to the Laulettas for a parking space in the common elements. In 1972, when the Laulettas agreed to purchase their unit, Bern promised to provide the Laulettas with two parking spaces inside the garage. When it was discovered that there were no garage spaces available, Bern designated a new space for the Laulettas in the common area outside the garage and in front of the condominium building that had not previously been so designated. Bern told the Laulettas that the condominium declaration would be amended to provide for the new parking space. The developer’s president executed a 99-year lease at the closing with a covenant to record an easement. At the time, Bern and the Laulettas controlled 15 of the condominium’s total 19 units. The declaration required approval from all unit owners before the common elements would be diminished and before there could be any amendment to the declaration provision that had established their undivided interest in the common elements. Another provision applicable to the parking area allowed amendment upon the approval of three-fourths of the ownership with proper notice to all owners. There was no proper amendment under either provision, nor was the easement ever recorded. When the association took over management of the condominium, it offered the Laulettas a parking space at the rear of the building, which the Laulettas refused. The trial court found for the Laulettas, noting that Bern made leases and operated the condominium as the developer before the association was created and that it would be inequitable to deprive the Laulettas of their contracted parking spaces. The challenging unit owners appealed and argued that (1) the Laulettas had attempted to purchase or lease a parking space from Bern that Bern had no right to control; and (2) the attempted amendment to the declaration was ineffective, and the disputed parking space remained part of the common area.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Wilson, 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