Tosney v. Chelmsford Village Condominium Association

Citations: 493 N.E.2d 488; 397 Mass. 683

Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court; June 2, 1986; Massachusetts; State Supreme Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts addressed whether the Massachusetts condominium statute permits "limited" common area charges applicable to fewer than all unit owners, and whether such charges must be established via an amendment to the master deed or through a recorded agreement between the condominium developer and association. The original developer of Chelmsford Village Condominiums had recorded a master deed reserving rights for future construction and defined common areas, stipulating that all unit owners share common expenses based on their undivided shares. Amendments to the master deed required a three-quarters vote of record owners and mortgagees.

After the original developer's bankruptcy, a new developer continued construction, and in February 1982, the Chelmsford Village Condominium Association and the developer recorded an agreement allowing special common area assessments for owners of garden-style buildings based on their respective beneficial interests. The plaintiffs later purchased a garden-style unit and were informed about this agreement. They initially paid for common area maintenance and special charges, but in 1984, they contested the assessments, claiming a violation of the condominium statute.

The association moved for summary judgment, which was granted, affirming the legality of the special common expense charges assessed according to the by-laws. The trial judge's ruling was upheld because it was based on undisputed facts and was correct as a matter of law.

A master deed for a condominium must be recorded under G.L.c. 183A, which mandates specific inclusions, such as the name of the managing entity and a statement of enacted by-laws. Each unit owner is entitled to an undivided interest in common areas, with percentages specified in the master deed, which cannot be altered without unanimous consent through a recorded amendment. The common profits and expenses are allocated based on these percentages. The plaintiffs argue that the association lacked authority to impose a special fee on some unit owners without amending the master deed. G.L.c. 183A serves as an enabling statute, providing minimum requirements while allowing flexibility for developers and owners to resolve unaddressed matters among themselves. Limited common areas, typically used by fewer than all unit owners, are not explicitly covered by the statute but are acknowledged in practice. The judge ruled that special common expenses are an extension of general common expenses. Common areas include facilities like elevators and parking, which should not impose unfair costs on unit owners who do not benefit from them. While it would have been prudent to formally amend the master deed to address these assessments, the association retains the right to charge owners for their use of limited areas. The plaintiffs were informed of an agreement between the developer and the association, recorded with the master deed, which referenced all related documents.

Plaintiffs were aware of the fees for common areas designated for garden-style condominium owners when they took title to the unit. The judge's ruling is upheld, and the plaintiffs' argument regarding the 1984 increase in the limited common area fee is dismissed. The judge clarified that the referenced section pertains to an increase in the proportionate share of unit owners, not a general increase in assessments. Additionally, the association's by-laws grant the board the authority to impose additional assessments as necessary. The judge's interpretation of the master deed's provisions is deemed accurate, leading to the affirmation of the judgment. The master deed outlines common areas and expenses, specifying that common areas encompass the entire property and related facilities, while common expenses involve administration and maintenance costs. Plaintiffs also cited a provision stating that amendments cannot increase an owner's share in common expenses without consent from all relevant owners and mortgage holders.