The Neighborhood Association Inc. v. Limberger
A condo association may not be required to inform a condo owner about a new proposal to collect fees, if the new proposal does not regulate the conduct of persons or use or appearance of property. Allegedly, the defendant, Jill Limberger, owed condominium association fees, and the plaintiff condominium association filed to foreclose a lien. Limberger filed a motion to dismiss and argued that the plaintiff did not comply with C.G.S. §47-258(m), prior to filing the foreclosure action. The statute requires that the condominium association make a demand on the unit owner for payment of unpaid fees and that the association's board vote to foreclose or to adopt a standard policy that provides for foreclosure. The court found that the plaintiff condominium association proved it made the demand for payment of the unpaid fees on Feb. 24, 2011. It also proved that the board of directors adopted a standard policy that provides for foreclosure on March 28, 2001. The court rejected the defendant's argument that the board was required to inform the plaintiff and other unit owners about a new proposal to collect fees. "Rule" changes are defined as a policy, guideline, restriction, procedure or regulation of an association that governs the conduct of persons or the use or appearance of property. The new proposal to collect fees did not regulate the conduct of persons or use or appearance of property. It qualified as an internal business operating procedure. "[T]he definition of 'rule,' " wrote the court, "is aimed at the conduct of residents and visitors of condominium units and the use and appearance of the physical facility rather than the enactment of internal protocols for the day-to-day operation of the complex." The board was not required to inform the defendant about the new proposal, prior to the board's vote, and the court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss.