Swan Creek Village Homeowners Association v. Warne
Utah Supreme Court
134 P.3d 1122 (2006)
- Written by Mary Phelan D'Isa, JD
Facts
Alicia Warne and others (the lot owners) (defendants) purchased lots in the Swan Creek Village development at a 1994 tax sale. After the lot owners argued that the tax sale extinguished any obligation for previous assessments levied on the lots in 1986, the Swan Creek Village Homeowners Association (the association) (plaintiff) imposed a new 1996 assessment to cover unpaid 1989 assessments and gave credits to those who already had paid the 1989 assessment. When the lot owners refused to pay, the association sued them to enforce and collect the 1996 assessment. The trial court granted summary judgment for the association. The lot owners appealed, arguing that the 1996 assessment was an unauthorized resuscitation of the 1986 assessment that the tax sale extinguished. Relevant sections of the declaration provided that (1) the association had the power to collect from every member a uniform monthly charge; (2) each lot owner had to pay the management association its allocated portion of maintenance expenses; (3) all lot owners agreed to pay the association all charges the association would make; and (4) each monthly and each special assessment was a separate, distinct, and personal to the lot owner of the lot against which the assessment was levied.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Parrish, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 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.