Stuewe v. Lauletta
93 Ill. App. 3d 1029, 49 Ill. Dec. 494, 418 N.E.2d 138 (1981)
Rule of Law:
A condominium declaration's provisions governing the definition and amendment of common elements must be strictly followed; a developer or unit owner cannot unilaterally diminish common elements or alter the declaration without obtaining the required owner approvals and adhering to specific procedural requirements for amendment, even if equitable considerations are present.
Facts:
- In October 1972, Mr. and Mrs. Lauletta entered into a real estate contract with Bern Builders, Inc. to purchase a condominium unit and were told they would have two parking spaces inside the garage.
- Before closing, Bern Builders determined that two parking spaces were not available inside the garage for the Laulettas.
- At closing, Bern Builders designated a new parking space, 3A, for the Laulettas outside the garage, which had not been previously identified on the property's survey.
- Bern Builders' president and the Laulettas executed a 99-year lease for space 3A with a covenant to record an easement, and Bern Builders indicated they would amend the condominium declaration to provide for this new parking space.
- The Laulettas moved into their unit in December 1972 and began using the designated parking space after shrubbery was removed in February or March 1973.
- The Declaration of Condominium, recorded in February 1972, designated all portions of the property except the units as common elements and included a survey that did not list space 3A as a designated parking area.
Procedural Posture:
- The St. Francis Court Condominium Association (plaintiffs) filed a complaint against the Laulettas (defendants), which included count III alleging that a lease/easement for a parking space in the common elements was improper.
- The trial court conducted a bench trial on count III.
- The trial court entered judgment in favor of the defendants (Lauletta) on count III and subsequently dismissed that count.
- Plaintiffs appealed the trial court's finding and dismissal of count III.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a developer's attempt to redesignate a portion of a condominium's common elements as an exclusive parking space for a unit owner, through a lease/easement, effectively amend the condominium declaration without following the declaration's specific amendment procedures and obtaining the required owner approvals?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. JUSTICE WILSON
No, a developer's attempt to redesignate a portion of a condominium's common elements as an exclusive parking space for a unit owner does not effectively amend the condominium declaration if it fails to follow the declaration's specific amendment procedures and obtain the required owner approvals. The court found that granting an exclusive easement for a parking space effectively diminished the common elements available to other owners. Article III of the Declaration specifically required 'unanimous approval of all owners' to change the extent of common element ownership, and Article XIII required specific written, signed, and acknowledged instruments from the Board, all owners, and all mortgagees to amend Article III. Even if the amendment fell under less stringent provisions requiring 3/4ths of the total vote, there was no evidence that the required procedure – including a written instrument, signing, acknowledgment, notice to owners, and recordation – was followed. The court emphasized that 'equity follows the law' and cannot be invoked to circumvent these express legal requirements, especially when the rights of other unit owners are affected. Both the developer and the unit owners were bound by the Declaration's provisions and could not disregard its requirements to effect an amendment.
Concurring - LORENZ and MEJDA, JJ.
Justices Lorenz and Mejda concurred with the majority opinion.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the critical importance of strictly adhering to the terms and amendment procedures outlined in a condominium declaration. It establishes that a developer, even when acting as the board of managers, cannot unilaterally alter common elements or property rights without meeting the declaration's specific approval requirements and procedural steps. The ruling further clarifies that equitable considerations, while often important, cannot override or supplant express legal requirements for amending recorded property instruments, thereby protecting the integrity of ownership interests within condominium regimes and preventing the arbitrary diminishment of common elements by developers or individual unit owners.
