Woodview Condominium Ass'n, Inc. v. Shanahan
New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division
917 A.2d 790 (2007)
- Written by Rich Walter, JD
Facts
Woodview Condominium Association, Inc. (the association) (plaintiff) charged a monthly condominium fee for the management services it provided to Kevin Shanahan, Tomas Pratts, Jr. (defendants), and other condominium property owners. Neither Shanahan nor Pratts paid their fees. Shanahan sold his property to Pratts in October 2000. Shanahan loaned Pratts the purchase money, and in return Pratts mortgaged the property to Shanahan. Pratts defaulted on the mortgage in September 2001. Sometime thereafter, Shanahan assumed control of the property as mortgagee in possession, and in 2003 he began leasing the property to third parties. In March 2005, Shanahan foreclosed on the property. In April 2005, the association successfully sued both Shanahan and Pratts for the delinquent condominium fees they owed. The court ordered Shanahan to pay any fees charged before October 2000, and Pratts to pay the fees charged between October 2000 and September 2001. The court ruled that Shanahan and Pratts were jointly liable for fees charged between September 2001 and March 2005. Shanahan appealed to the New Jersey Superior Court's appellate division, contending that he had no liability for any assessments after October 2000.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Parrillo, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 812,000 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.