At the end of 2018, Pennsylvania passed the “Assistance and Service Animal Integrity Act” or ASAIA for short. ASAIA is designed to eliminate fraudulent claims by pet owners asserting a need for an “emotional support animal” in order to bypass the Association’s rules on pets. I have written a number of articles on
Associations and Unit Owners frequently disagree over who is responsible to pay for repairs to certain items. Sometimes it is easy to figure out. The Association needs to pay for repairs to the community swimming pool, and the Unit Owner needs to fix the stove. Whenever the item to be repaired gets close to the boundary of the Unit, however, the answer to this question becomes more difficult. I came across an interesting case, Winchester Condominium Association v. Auria, where the question was who is responsible to pay for re-wiring a wall outlet: the Unit Owner or the Association?
In this case, the Association required all of the Unit Owners to replace aluminum wiring in the outlets of their Units. The Unit Owners were informed that the replacement was required for safety reasons and for the Association to maintain property insurance. [Note: I have done this a few times for dryer vents, pans under hot water heaters and fireplace insulation.] Every Unit Owner made arrangements to have the wiring in their outlets replaced. Every Unit Owner, that is, except for one. …
Soon community associations will have to deal with snow and ice, and the problems that come with it. In this article I want to discuss salt and other deicers. Many unit owners are certain that one type of salt will ruin their sidewalks. Other units owners believe that any kind of ice melt will harm concrete. Associations get complaints about ice in the winter, and then about spalling sidewalks in the spring. Which deicers are best, and which are asking for problems? Although most of my posts contain mostly legal advice, for this article I got to use my background as a chemical engineer too.
There are four main kinds of ice melt that are used. They are sodium chloride (rock salt), calcium chloride, magnesium chloride and calcium magnesium acetate (CMA). The truth is that all ice melt works in basically the same way. Magnesium chloride, calcium chloride and CMA all absorb water. In doing so, they produce a chemical reaction with the water that produces heat. The heat produced melts the ice. The melting ice dissolves the deicer, and then carries it onto the rest of the surface. Sodium chloride is a little different in that it actually lowers the temperature in which water freezes. So instead of freezing at 32 degrees, water with salt dissolved in it doesn’t freeze until it is 25 degrees. Try it at home – science is fun!…
… no matter how much they want to. Many planned community and condominium declarations have a confession of judgment paragraph. These are usually towards the back and written in all caps (just like my father-in-law sending an email). They seem to permit associations to bypass all of the demand letters and District Justice courtrooms, and just enter a judgment against the Unit Owner. But what looks good on paper doesn’t always work in practice. Pennsylvania Courts just re-affirmed the long-time rule that Associations cannot confess judgment against Unit Owners.
Residential condominium or homeowner association assessments are a “consumer credit transaction.” This means that the assessments are used to pay for goods or services that are primarily for personal family or household use. Pennsylvania law says that a person cannot enter a confessed judgment against another for a debt that comes from a consumer credit transaction. In the case that I read, the Association and the Unit Owner entered into a payment plan. When the Unit Owner stopped making payments, the Association entered a confessed judgment against him. The Court struck the confessed judgment on its own – it did not even wait for the Unit Owner to make a request. …
Lots of Association board members worry whether the Association is required to enact rules to control dangerous dogs. In McMahon v. Pleasant Valley West Association, the Commonwealth Court ruled that an Association does not have a duty to force a unit owner to maintain, control or confine their dogs on the dog owner’s property. The Association also does not have a duty to prevent dogs from harming other unit owners. Because they have no duty to control the dog, or to protect unit owners from harm caused by the dog, the Association was not responsible for injuries to the unit owner. The Court noted that there was no “special relationship” between the Association and the dog owner or the victim of the dog attack. The Court noted that the Association did not act to “provide any additional protections against an attack by the … dogs over and above the protections provided in the dog law….”…
* House Bill 595 was signed by Governor Tom Wolf on Monday, May 7, 2018. The Bill becomes effective on Wednesday, July 6.
The Pennsylvania General Assembly passed House Bill 595, which is expected to be signed by Governor Wolf. This Bill gives a process for deciding disputes in Condominium and Homeowners’ Associations. There are a few things that every Association should know about this new requirement. They are:
- Most Associations need to adopt bylaws or rules and regulations that establish Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR) procedures. This includes procedures for disputes between two or more unit owners and/or between a unit owner and the Association.
- A “unit owner in good standing” can file a Complaint with the Attorney General’s Bureau of Consumer Protection for a violation of the Act relating to meetings, quorums, voting, proxies, and Association records. Previously, this option was available only to disputes over Association financial records.
- A “unit owner in good standing” is someone who has no past due assessments. So a unit owner that is behind on their assessments cannot file a Complaint with the Bureau of Consumer Protection. Except that if the unpaid assessments are related to a Complaint filed with the Bureau of Consumer Protection, then the unit owner is in good standing regardless of unpaid assessments.
- A unit owner cannot file a Complaint with the Bureau of Consumer Protection until he or she has exhausted the ADR procedure or at least 100 days after the unit owner started the Alternative Dispute Resolution procedure. If there is no ADR procedure, the unit owner can go straight to the Bureau.
- Finally, if a unit owner has a dispute with the Association and wins, he or she may be entitled to an award of costs and reasonable attorney’s fees.
These additions to the Uniform Condominium Act and the Uniform Planned Communities Act are intended to help owners and Associations settle their differences without going to court. In order to do this, Associations will need to take some steps to prepare themselves:…
I recently wrote about a trend in Pennsylvania case law that has permitted short-term vacation rentals, such as Airbnb, HomeAway, VRBO and others, in otherwise residential neighborhoods. In each of these cases, a homeowner rented out their single-family residential dwelling to vacationers, the municipality claimed the short-term rental was a violation of the Zoning ordinance, and the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court said that the short-term rentals were still residential uses, not hotels or tourist homes. All of these cases said that if the municipality wanted to prohibit short-term vacation rentals, they needed to specifically and unquestionably prohibit that use. …
In many cases, an association will seek a Court Order to enforce its rules and regulations. In those cases, the association asks a Judge to order the unit owner to stop doing something that they are not allowed to do, or to make some sort of change to comply with association governing documents or rules and regulations. Since the association is asking the Judge to require a specific behavior, it needs to be sure that it asks for exactly what it wants. …
I have written a number of times on this blog about providing reasonable accommodations for “service animals” and “emotional support animals.” This legal battle continues to affect condominium and homeowner association communities. A recent case shows a new way that a condominium association could get in trouble for refusing to provide a reasonable accommodation: because of a neighbor’s blog post.
Estate of Walters v. Cowpet Bay West Condominium Association, begins with the “usual” issue. Two condominium unit owners sought to keep “emotional support dogs” in the condominium. The condominium’s rules absolutely banned pets. In this case, the Court determined that the unit owners were disabled, and that the support animals were necessary to allow them the use and enjoyment of the condominium unit. Because of this, the condominium association was required to make a reasonable accommodation under the Fair Housing Act.
The concerning part of this case arises from the blog of some disgruntled neighbors. The opinion from the United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, quoted a number of blog posts from residents of the community that opposed the emotional support dogs. One neighbor replied on a blog post “isolate them [the unit owners] completely to their little “dog patch” on the beach and ignore them at every venue or occasion!”…
Aaron Marines was a recent contributor to the January/February 2017 issue of Community Assets bi-monthly magazine for the Pennsylvania and Delaware Valley Chapter of Community Associations Institute.
“Associations are often faced with the question of whether they need to ignore their dog rules for an “emotional support animal.” Many boards are surprised to learn that …