Daniel C. Lavering v. University Village Owners Association

Summary

The Virginia Court of Appeals granted rehearing, withdrew its May 5, 2026 opinion, vacated the mandate, and ordered reconsideration by the original panel. In the withdrawn opinion, the court affirmed summary judgment for the University Village Owners Association, holding that extending the time to exercise a condominium expansion option could be approved by a two-thirds vote rather than unanimity. The court also upheld the denial of sanctions and the award of attorney fees to the Association.

Holdings

1. The action presented an actual and justiciable controversy because the Association had expressly asserted its legal position and had taken concrete steps, including adopting a resolution and retaining counsel, toward amending the declaration to permit expansion.
2. The phrase "such time limit" in Code § 55.1-1916(C)(3) refers to the time limit for expanding the condominium, not the period of declarant control.
3. Extending the time limit to pursue the option to expand an expandable condominium may be accomplished by an amendment approved by two-thirds of the unit owners under Code §§ 55.1-1916(C)(3) and 55.1-1934(B).
4. Allowing the condominium instruments to be amended by a two-thirds vote to extend the expansion period does not improperly transfer or create a special declarant right in the Association.
5. The circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying Lavering's motion for sanctions based on the Association's denial in its answer that expansion could proceed by a two-thirds vote.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Lavering's declaratory judgment action presented an actual, justiciable controversy even though the Association had not yet submitted a final expansion proposal to the unit owners.
2. Whether Code § 55.1-1916(C)(3) permits the time limit for expanding an expandable condominium to be extended by amendment to the condominium declaration.
3. Whether extending the time to exercise an expansion option changes unit owners' undivided interests in the common elements and therefore requires unanimous approval under Code § 55.1-1934(E).
4. Whether permitting the amendment by a two-thirds vote improperly transferred or created special declarant rights.
5. Whether the circuit court abused its discretion by denying Lavering's motion for sanctions.
6. Whether the Association was properly awarded attorney fees as the prevailing party.

Disposition

affirmed