April 21, 2015

Court Resolves Dispute Over Sewer Line Damage Caused by Tree Roots

The Washington Court of Appeals recently issued a published opinion involving downhill homeowners' claims against neighboring uphill homeowners and a neighboring uphill undeveloped property owner for damage to their residence caused by a clogged private sewer line shared by the homeowners.  The Court affirmed the trial court's order directing the neighboring uphill homeowners (who used and benefited from the sewer line) to pay an equal share to repair the sewer line, dismissing the claims against the neighboring uphill homeowners for damage to the residence, and dismissing all claims against the neighboring uphill undeveloped property owner (which did not use or benefit from the sewer line).  The Court held that no controlling legal authority imposed an affirmative duty on the parties to inspect the sewer line.

During the course of its opinion, the Court discussed a property owner's potential liability when the roots of trees on the owner's property invade a neighboring property and cause damage.  It pointed out that the Washington Supreme Court resolved a 1945 dispute involving such facts by holding that "it is the duty of the one who is the owner of the offending agency to restrain its encroachment upon the property of another." Luckily for the neighboring uphill undeveloped property owner in the recent case, the roots of the tree on its property clogged the portion of the sewer line underneath its property but did not invade any neighboring property.  

April 5, 2015

Washington Supreme Court Affirms Drainage Pipe Maintenance Decision

The Washington Supreme Court recently upheld an appellate court's decision that the City of Bothell assumed responsibility for maintaining a drainage pipe installed in a residential subdivision in Snohomish County.  The Court concluded that the only reasonable interpretation of the plat is that the City assumed responsibility to maintain that pipe.  My previous post about this case in 2013 is here.

Sometimes the Court includes a choice quote or two in its opinions.  This opinion features this response to the City's attempt to raise a constitutional argument: "Naked castings into the constitutional sea are not sufficient to command judicial consideration and discussion."       

March 4, 2015

HOAleader.com Interviews Discuss Actions Without Meetings and Alcohol at Meetings

I was recently interviewed by HOAleader.com regarding two interesting questions that community association boards sometimes encounter.  First, can boards act without a meeting?  Second, can boards allow alcohol at meetings?  To see how I and other industry professionals responded to those questions, please follow these links: 

Can Boards Act Without a Meeting?

Can Boards Allow Alcohol at Meetings?  

February 6, 2015

Recent Court Decision Interprets Tree Covenants

The Washington Court of Appeals recently issued an unpublished decision that interpreted covenants governing trees in a residential community.  The Court ruled that the covenants prohibit removal of natural tree growth consistent with the plan of development and impose a six foot height limitation on trees not protected under the plan of development (including natural growth).  The Court noted that the tree height restriction must be enforced even if that necessitates the removal of the trees at issue. 

The Court admitted during the course of its decision that the tree covenants before it were "not a model of clarity." It can also sometimes be difficult for association boards to decide what certain covenants mean.  Consulting with an experienced attorney can help ensure that such covenants are understood and enforced in the correct manner.

December 30, 2014

Washington Court Affirms Application of Statute of Limitation in Condo Act

In a published decision issued last month, the Washington Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court's application of a one-year statute of limitation contained in the Washington Condominium Act.  The section of the Act governing declaration amendments states that a challenge to an amendment "adopted by the association pursuant to this section" may not be brought more than one year after that amendment is recorded.  The Court held that the statute of limitation did not apply to the declaration amendment at issue because it was not adopted with the proper amount of owner approval and was therefore void from its inception.  As a result, an owner's successful challenge to the declaration amendment in the lower court was upheld. This decision is only binding authority in eastern Washington.

Condominium declaration amendments are subject to many legal requirements.  If those requirements are not followed, then amendments can be invalidated.  Condominium association boards should consult with experienced attorneys before they seek to amend their declarations.