Introduction

The Supreme Court of New Hampshire, in the case of Anthony Moda &a. v. Fernwood at Winnipesaukee Condominium Association &a. (2024 N.H. 65), addressed critical issues surrounding the expansion of a condominium unit into limited common areas. This case involves the plaintiffs, Anthony and Rosemarie Moda and Anthony and Olga Alba, who challenged the defendants—Fernwood at Winnipesaukee Condominium Association and the unit owners Robin and Phyllis Gelinas—for altering their respective condominium units. The central issues revolved around the interpretation and application of RSA 356-B:19, I, particularly concerning the assignment and reassignment of limited common areas without unanimous consent from all adversely affected unit owners.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court of New Hampshire vacated the Superior Court’s (Leonard, J.) decision, which had granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The lower court had ruled that the Gelinases' expansion into limited common areas did not violate RSA 356-B:19, I, and awarded attorney's fees to the defendants. However, the Supreme Court found that the trial court erred in its interpretation of the condominium instruments and the statute, specifically regarding whether unanimous consent was required for the reassignment of limited common areas. The appellate court concluded that the reassignment likely impacted all unit owners and thus required compliance with RSA 356-B:19, I, necessitating unanimous consent, which was not obtained.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment references several key precedents that guided the court’s analysis:

• JMJ Properties, LLC v. Town of Auburn, 168 N.H. 127 (2015): Established standards for reviewing summary judgment motions, emphasizing that the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.
• Polonsky v. Town of Bedford, 171 N.H. 89 (2018): Clarified the standard for de novo review of questions of law, ensuring appellate courts independently review legal interpretations.
• SCHAEFER v. EASTMAN COMMUNITY ASSOCiation, 150 N.H. 187 (2003): Reinforced the importance of adherence to statutory requirements in condominium governance.
• Holt v. Keer, 167 N.H. 232 (2015): Highlighted the protective intent of RSA 356-B:19, I, safeguarding unit owners’ interests in limited common areas.

Legal Reasoning

The core of the Supreme Court’s reasoning centered on the interpretation of RSA 356-B:19, I, and the condominium’s declaration. The statute mandates that any assignment or reassignment of limited common areas must be properly documented in the condominium instruments and typically requires unanimous consent from all adversely affected unit owners unless explicitly waived in the condominium declaration.

The court scrutinized Articles 2-708, 6-101, and 6-102 of the Fernwood declaration, determining that these provisions did not adequately or expressly waive the statutory requirements for reassigning limited common areas. Specifically, Article 2-708 addressed minor encroachments and did not cover significant expansions, while Articles 6-101 and 6-102 required board approval for structural changes but did not override the need for unanimous consent for altering limited common areas.

Furthermore, the court clarified that converting a portion of the limited common area into a private unit alters the collective ownership and exclusive use rights of other unit owners, thus invoking the protections of RSA 356-B:19, I. The trial court's determination that the plaintiffs were adversely affected was affirmed as the expansion diminished the collective ownership interests, even if not resulting in direct harm.

Impact

This judgment has significant implications for condominium governance and unit modifications:

• Strengthened Owner Protections: Reinforces the necessity for unanimous consent when altering limited common areas, ensuring that all unit owners retain their collective interests.
• Clarification of Condominium Instrument Interpretation: Provides a clearer framework for interpreting condominium declarations in relation to statutory requirements, preventing potential overreach in unit modifications.
• Precedent for Future Cases: Establishes a legal precedent that will influence how courts handle similar disputes involving limited common area alterations, promoting adherence to established procedures.

Condominium associations and unit owners must now be more diligent in obtaining necessary consents before undertaking significant modifications that impact common or limited common areas.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Limited Common Area

Limited common areas are parts of the condominium property designated for the exclusive use of specific unit owners. Examples include balconies, patios, or designated parking spaces. These areas are owned collectively by all unit owners but are available for individual use by certain units.

RSA 356-B:19, I

This statute governs the assignment and reassignment of limited common areas within a condominium. It requires that any changes to limited common areas must be documented in the condominium instruments and generally necessitates unanimous approval from all unit owners affected by the change, unless explicitly waived in the condominium declaration.

Summary Judgment

Summary judgment is a legal procedure where the court decides a case without a full trial because there are no genuine disputes over the material facts of the case. It is appropriate only when one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Assignment vs. Reassignment

Assignment refers to the initial designation or allocation of limited common areas to specific units. Reassignment involves changing this allocation, such as altering which unit has exclusive use of a particular area. Reassignment typically requires following statutory procedures to ensure all affected parties consent.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of New Hampshire’s decision in Anthony Moda &a. v. Fernwood at Winnipesaukee Condominium Association &a. underscores the critical importance of adhering to statutory requirements when modifying condominium units and limited common areas. By vacating the Superior Court’s summary judgment in favor of the defendants, the appellate court emphasized that unanimous consent is essential for reassigning limited common areas, thereby protecting the collective interests of all unit owners. This judgment not only clarifies the application of RSA 356-B:19, I but also sets a robust precedent ensuring that condominium governance remains fair and transparent, ultimately fostering a more equitable living environment for all condominium residents.