You are a condominium owner in a multifamily building and one of your neighbors is chronically disruptive to you and others in the building to the point where the life-styles of the others and you are significantly affected. The disruption is constant and no amount of reasoning with the offending owner produces any improvement. Do you have any effective remedies? In an apartment building where the individual units are leased, it is relatively easy to evict an offending tenant who has no equity interest in his unit. But in a condominium development where the offender owns his unit, can he be forced out?
Twenty-five years ago the word “condominium” was unknown to most of us; it is a concept of property ownership, both residential and commercial, which obviously filled a gap as today condominiums represent a significant percentage of property ownership. Previously most apartment residents were tenants without ownership rights; as a result they were denied many of the benefits which accrued to owners of residences, such as income tax deductions for mortgage interest and real estate taxes. Perhaps most important when a lease expires, a tenant is left with no ownership interest, to say nothing of appreciation in the value of the real estate.
In a condominium building the apartment owner realizes all of the benefits of ownership. While the condominium owner does not own a specific tract, he or she owns space; the “unit” is described as everything enclosed by the ceiling, floor, and perimeter walls of the apartment. A portion of condominium residents’ monthly payments actually purchases an interest (which is deemed to be real estate); and they enjoy all of the income tax benefits related to real estate ownership.
In order to maintain the common elements such as the grounds, the hallways, and the roofs the condominium association, which consists of all the owners in the building and is supported by a monthly payment by each owner, has been created. Usually, there is a nonprofit corporation formed, by-laws are adopted, officers and directors are chosen, and regular meetings are conducted. Also, certain duties are imposed on each unit owner; because they are living in close proximity to many others, and it is in the best interest of all to preserve the common elements in good condition, owners are not permitted to destroy them; further they must not create excessive noises or odors. Each condominium association creates regulations which set forth the rights and duties of the owners.
Inevitably, in certain condominiums “bad” owners will appear; people who one way or another diminish the lifestyles of others in the building. Is it possible to impose sanctions on offenders? One obvious method is to create a schedule of fines for violators, but that may be inadequate for the chronic offender. The ultimate sanction would be expulsion, but since the disruptive person owns his or her unit, is such a drastic action possible?
Long before we had condominiums New York City had cooperatives which are not exactly the same thing, but for all practical purposes work very much like condominiums. In one recent case, a unit owner in a very large cooperative building made himself into a major pest. Immediately after his purchase, he demanded video surveillance, 24-hour door service, and replacement of the lobby mailboxes. He accused his neighbors (an elderly couple) of conducting a loud bookbinding business and playing their television and stereo loudly; he wrote letters to them continuously, 16 in one month alone! It turned out the couple had neither a television nor stereo set and owned no business. He had a fight with an elderly professor and swore out criminal charges which were dismissed. He falsely accused the cooperative board of cutting his telephone lines, and publicly accused the board’s president’s wife of having “intimate personal relations” with another owner. He performed illegal construction to his unit, filed four lawsuits against owners, and was thwarted in his efforts to start three more.
At a meeting called to consider expelling him, a vast majority attended and voted 2,048 to 0 to cancel his lease and evict him. In the resolution that was adopted the board provided that the proceeds from the sale of the troublesome owner’s unit, after costs, were to be paid to him. The court affirmed the action of the board because it had acted in good faith and carefully followed the procedure set forth in its by-laws; the court refused to substitute its judgment for the board’s while noting that the board had the right to preserve and protect the interests of the residential community.
This was an extreme pest, and there are significant differences between cooperatives and condominiums; however the principles supporting the decision could probably apply to the case of a condominium owner who egregiously violates a condominium’s resolution. Obviously, the courts will not permit a person’s home to be taken from him frivolously; but where an owner’s conduct becomes so outrageous as to disrupt the peace and tranquility seriously, the other owners are not without their remedies, assuming they respect the rights of the alleged wrong-doer and proceed carefully in good faith.
— Ken Butera