Condo Media - November 2022 - 48

The Region RHODE ISLAND
Fox in the
Resolving Pr Henhouseoblems Within
the Association [By Frank A. Lombardi, Esq., CCAL]
I have two unit owners from two
different associations who, due to the
action or inaction of their respective
boards, have threatened to go to state
and local agencies to deal with their unit
grievances. While it is certainly any unit
owner's right to seek redress of grievances
from the government, my counsel
is that it's almost always better to solve
these problems in house or within the
association rather than to resort to
seeking help from the government,
which may bring unintended consequences.
Let's compare two scenarios.
SCENARIO 1:
Sewerage Backup
A unit owner has a sewerage backup.
Over the last three years, she has
encountered three separate sewerage
backups. Her contractors have determined
that the problem is originating
from the association's onsite septic disposal
system. The system, badly in need
of repair, is causing multiple problems
for this unit owner and the system's
failure is apparently imminent, which
obviously could ultimately affect the
association's other 20 unit owners.
Instead of addressing the problem
head on, the board has chosen to delay
the capital repair and replacement
of the system and has instituted an
ill-advised policy of reallocating
responsibility for addressing interior
backups to the unit owner, and to
make matters worse, require her to
either pay the clean out contractors on
her own or submit it to her own HO6
insurance carrier rather than through
the association's master carrier.
46 CONDOMEDIA November 2022
The unit owner's insurance company
paid for two separate incidents but is
about to drop coverage, leaving the
unit owner holding the bag for the
next and succeeding incidents.
Despite several requests, the board
and its property manager have failed
or otherwise refused to attempt the
needed wholesale repair of the pumping
station and system. The legal remedies
for this unit owner would be to sue the
association for its failure to fulfill its
duties under the condo's governing
declaration/bylaws as well as the Rhode
Island Condominium Statute, go to the
health inspector, or both. The former
would require legal funds she does not
have, and the latter would bring onto
the property the inspector, who likely
would condemn the project and deny
occupancy of the entire condo unless
and until the system has been replaced.
SCENARIO 2:
View Corridor Obstructed
A unit owner is part of a large condominium
complex with several
buildings abutting a large wetlands
waterway and bay. The condominium's
declarant made a deal with the Rhode
Island Coastal Resources Management
Council (CRMC) 30 years
ago establishing use and occupancy
restrictions for this condominium's
water resource and amenity. The
restrictions are quite liberal when
compared to the modern and updated
requirements and standards of today.
The unit owner in this scenario has a
view corridor to the water through the
wetlands that is interrupted by vegetative
growth in the wetlands between his
unit and the water during the summer.
The growth is trimmed during the fall
per the old agreement with the agency.
The unit owner has asked the board to
cut the growth during all four seasons to
give him a full view of the water all year
round. As this would violate the CRMC
agreement, the association has refused.
The unit owner has threatened to go
to CRMC to address his grievance. The
agency would then come on the property,
inspect and revisit the old agreement,
and more than likely update the plan
with more restrictions, denying present
access to the waterway and water for 90
other unit owners. In this scenario, in an
effort to address his own desire to see
the water all year round, he will in effect
expose the association to stricter standards,
making conditions worse for the
other 90 unit owners, which would be
like letting a fox into the henhouse, so to
speak, and ruining the existing use of the
property by the other 90 unit owners.
COMPARE AND CONTRAST
First off, both scenarios may cost the
association more money. While the
first is necessary, I would argue that the
second is not and, in fact, would serve
to bring on more onerous regulations.
l In scenario 1, the repair and replacement
of the system would benefit all
of the unit owners of the association,
while in scenario 2, the attempt to
modify the wetlands view corridor
would help only one unit owner and,
in so doing, make matters worse for
the rest of the unit owners.
Condo Media - November 2022

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Condo Media - November 2022
