Council of the Dorset Condominium Apartments v. Gordon

Summary

The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed in part the Court of Chancery's ruling that a condominium council lacked authority under the governing documents to assess unit owners for replacement of exterior windows and sliding glass doors. The court held that the windows and doors were part of the individual units rather than common elements or common expenses. It reversed and remanded issues concerning the applicable interest rate on the parking-deck assessment and the denial of attorneys' fees and costs.

Holdings

1. The exterior windows and sliding glass doors were part of the individual units, not common elements, because the declaration specifically included them within the description of each unit. Accordingly, the Council lacked authority to impose the related replacement assessment as a common expense under the Unit Property Act.
2. The declaration and code of regulations did not authorize a simple majority of unit owners to designate any expense as common. The governing documents permitted owner action only when specifically authorized, and the only provision addressing creation of a common expense applied to improvements in common elements, not to the individual windows and doors.
3. The parking-deck assessment was valid because the parking area was a common element and the work constituted maintenance, repair, or replacement rather than an improvement requiring owner approval under Article 12(I).
4. The interest-rate ruling was reversed and remanded because the Court of Chancery did not disclose the basis for applying the legal rate rather than the rate permitted by the Unit Property Act and the code of regulations.
5. The denial of attorney's fees and costs was reversed and remanded for specific findings concerning the fee provision in Article 9(A)(2) of the code of regulations.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the exterior windows and sliding glass doors were common elements or otherwise constituted common expenses that the Council could assess against all unit owners.
2. Whether the condominium declaration and code of regulations authorized a simple majority of unit owners to designate the window and door replacement as a common expense.
3. Whether the Court of Chancery properly determined the interest rate applicable to the parking-deck assessment.
4. Whether the Court of Chancery properly denied the Council attorney's fees and costs under the code of regulations.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded