Grenier v. Barclay Square Commercial Condominium Owners' Ass'n

Summary

The New Hampshire Supreme Court held that a condominium association was not authorized to tow vehicles under its parking rule, which provided for revocation of parking permission and was subject to existing bylaw penalty provisions. The court denied attorney's fees to both sides, vacated the denial of the plaintiff's costs for consideration under Superior Court Rule 87, and held that the defendants were responsible for storage costs arising from the unlawful towing.

Holdings

1. A condominium association's parking rule could not authorize towing where the condominium documents and the rule provided other sanctions, including revocation of parking permission and limited fines. The defendants therefore lacked authority to tow the plaintiff's vehicles.
2. RSA 356-B:15, II authorizes a condominium association to recover attorney's fees and costs when it prevails in litigation enforcing the lawful provisions of RSA chapter 356-B or the condominium instruments; it does not entitle the association to fees merely because it initiated or defended a proceeding.
3. The plaintiff was not entitled to attorney's fees because the defendants did not act in bad faith and did not maintain a patently unreasonable position, and the court could not create reciprocal fee entitlement absent statutory authorization.
4. The trial court's denial of the plaintiff's request for costs had to be vacated because the record did not establish that the request was considered under Superior Court Rule 87.
5. The plaintiff was not responsible for the $4,350 in storage charges. The defendants could not invoke mitigation to shift to the plaintiff an obligation arising from the defendants' unlawful towing and storage of the vehicles.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the condominium association and its board had authority to tow vehicles for violations of the overnight parking rule.
2. Whether the defendants were entitled to attorney's fees under RSA 356-B:15, II.
3. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to attorney's fees based on bad faith, patently unreasonable conduct, or equitable principles.
4. Whether the plaintiff's request for costs had to be reconsidered under Superior Court Rule 87.
5. Whether the plaintiff was responsible for storage charges under the mitigation-of-damages doctrine when he did not claim those charges as damages and was not legally obligated to pay them.

Disposition

other