<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?><rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<title>Condominium Law - MoreLaw.com</title>
<link>http://www.morelaw.com</link>
<description>Condominium Law - MoreLaw.com</description>
<language>en-us</language>
<copyright>&#169; Copyright 2008, MoreLaw.com Inc All Rights Reserved.</copyright>
<category>Recent Cases</category>
<item>
<title>Lynne Bloch v. Edward Frischholz</title>
<author>kent@morelaw.com (Kent Morlan)</author>
<link>http://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?n=06-3376&amp;s=IL&amp;d=42010</link>
<description>In this case, we consider whether condominium owners can sue their condo association under the Fair Housing Act (FHA), 42 U.S.C.  3601 et seq., for alleged religious and racial discrimination that took place after the owners bought their condo unit. We highlight the word after because based on a prior opinion from this court, Halprin v. Prairie Single Family Homes of Dearborn Park Ass</description>
<pubDate>Fri, 13 Nov 2009 00:00:00 CST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Ghassan Saleh v. Ribeiro Trucking, LLC, et al.</title>
<author>kent@morelaw.com (Kent Morlan)</author>
<link>http://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?n=AC%2029825&amp;s=CT&amp;d=41940</link>
<description>The plaintiff, Ghassan Saleh, appeals from the judgment of the trial court, which set aside the jury verdict and ordered a new trial on the issue of damages after he refused to accept a court-ordered remittitur. The plaintiffs sole claim on appeal is that the court improperly ordered the remittitur in the absence of any reason to determine that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence</description>
<pubDate>Mon, 9 Nov 2009 00:00:00 CST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Moss Creek Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Ted L. Bissette, et al.</title>
<author>kent@morelaw.com (Kent Morlan)</author>
<link>http://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?n=COA08-1156&amp;s=NC&amp;d=41811</link>
<description>Ted and Mary Bissette (the Bissettes) appeal from orders: (1) granting plaintiffs and third-party defendants summary judgment motion, (2) dismissing their claim for breach of fiduciary duty, and (3) awarding attorneys fees for contempt and enforcement of subdivision restrictions. We affirm in part and reverse in part.FACTSMoss Creek is a single-family residential development in </description>
<pubDate>Tue, 20 Oct 2009 00:00:00 CST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Warwick Towers Council of Co-Owners v. Park Warwick, L.P., Park Warwick Investments, L.L.C., and Par</title>
<author>kent@morelaw.com (Kent Morlan)</author>
<link>http://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?n=14-05-00254-CV&amp;s=TX&amp;d=41821</link>
<description>Warwick Towers Council of Co-Owners (the ACouncil@) (SIC - The Fourteenth District publishes its reports online with letters substituted for certain characters.), acting by and through St. Paul Fire &amp; Marine Insurance Company, appeals from a summary judgment granted in favor of Park Warwick L.P., Park Warwick Investments, L.L.C., and Park Hotel Investments, L.L.C (collectively, the AHotel Appellee</description>
<pubDate>Thu, 8 Oct 2009 00:00:00 CST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>David D. Beal, et al. v. David A. McGuire, et al.</title>
<author>kent@morelaw.com (Kent Morlan)</author>
<link>http://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?n=S-12626&amp;s=AK&amp;d=41606</link>
<description>Six members of a joint venture sued two other members, primarily claiming breaches of fiduciary duties. The joint venture, most of whose members were Anchorage physicians, owned a medical services condominium on Laurel Street and leased it out for use as an ambulatory surgical center. The plaintiffs claimed in part that the joint venturer defendants and others were liable for moving the surgical c</description>
<pubDate>Thu, 8 Oct 2009 00:00:00 CST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Alan Stein v. Paradigm Mirasol, LLC</title>
<author>kent@morelaw.com (Kent Morlan)</author>
<link>http://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?n=08-10983&amp;s=FL&amp;d=41519</link>
<description>In a market-based economy the price of housing, like other goods, is subject to swings. There was a sharp upward swing in housing prices between late 2000 and the end of 2005, and the resulting bubble was bigger in Florida than it was in most other states. Home prices there rose eighty-two percent in absolute terms during that short period, outstripping the fifty-one percent national increase. See</description>
<pubDate>Wed, 30 Sep 2009 00:00:00 CST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Alonzo Mansfield, Jr. v. A &amp; M Automotive</title>
<author>kent@morelaw.com (Kent Morlan)</author>
<link>http://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?n=(AC%2029834&amp;s=CT&amp;d=41463</link>
<description>The plaintiff, Alonzo Mansfield, Jr., appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the defendant, A &amp; M Automotive. The plaintiff claims that the court improperly (1) concluded that the defendant did not violate General Statutes  14-145a, (2) failed to find that the defendant was liable for conversion and (3) failed to find that the defendants actions constituted a violat</description>
<pubDate>Tue, 29 Sep 2009 00:00:00 CST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>World Species List -  Natural Features Registry Institute v. Richard David Reading &amp; another</title>
<author>kent@morelaw.com (Kent Morlan)</author>
<link>http://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?n=08-P-282.&amp;s=MA&amp;d=41456</link>
<description>A judge of the Land Court entered a summary judgment declaring that easement language was in essence a view easement that permits the defendants to cut vegetation in order to maintain their view. The plaintiff appeals. We affirm.Background. The original plaintiff, Richard Stafursky, is the founder and president of World Species List--Natural Features Registry Institute (World Species). World Speci</description>
<pubDate>Tue, 29 Sep 2009 00:00:00 CST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Daniel Guggenhein v. City of Goleta</title>
<author>kent@morelaw.com (Kent Morlan)</author>
<link>http://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?n=06-56306&amp;s=CA&amp;d=41441</link>
<description>Daniel Guggenheim and others bring a facial challenge to the City of Goletas mobile home rent control ordinance.Guggenheim argues that the ordinance, which effects a transfer of nearly 90 percent of the property value from mobile home park owners to mobile home tenants, constitutes a regulatory taking under Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (1978). We have fielded s</description>
<pubDate>Tue, 29 Sep 2009 00:00:00 CST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Blue Star Corporation v. CKF Properties, LLC</title>
<author>kent@morelaw.com (Kent Morlan)</author>
<link>http://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?n=2009%20ME%20101&amp;s=ME&amp;d=41453</link>
<description>[1] Blue Star Corporation appeals, and CKF Properties, LLC, cross-appeals, from a summary judgment of the Superior Court (Cumberland County, Delahanty, J.): (1) in favor of Blue Star on its claim for breach of contract against CKF; (2) in favor of CKF on Blue Stars claim for lost profits damages resulting from the breach; and (3) in favor of CKFs president, Timothy Flannery, as to all clai</description>
<pubDate>Thu, 24 Sep 2009 00:00:00 CST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Home Devco / Tivoli Isles, LLC v. Donna Silver</title>
<author>kent@morelaw.com (Kent Morlan)</author>
<link>http://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?n=4D08-3500&amp;s=FL&amp;d=41414</link>
<description>The developer appeals from a final judgment, asserting that it was exempt from provisions of the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act (ILSA), 15 U.S.C.  1701 et seq., because it was obligated to complete construction of the residence within two years of the real estate sales contract. Because the two-year completion provision in the contract was illusory, the developer was not exempt from t</description>
<pubDate>Wed, 23 Sep 2009 00:00:00 CST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Bill Mitchell v. The Beach Club of Hallandale Condominium Association, Inc.</title>
<author>kent@morelaw.com (Kent Morlan)</author>
<link>http://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?n=4D08-2123%20and%204D09-1903&amp;s=FL&amp;d=41411</link>
<description>The trial court dismissed appellants complaint for an injunction to prevent the levy of a condominium special assessment, without prejudice to refile a complaint which met the jurisdictional limits of the court. Because the complaint sought an injunction for which the circuit court has subject matter jurisdiction, we reverse the order of dismissal as well as the order granting prevailing </description>
<pubDate>Wed, 23 Sep 2009 00:00:00 CST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Evan Carolyn v. Orange Park Community Association</title>
<author>kent@morelaw.com (Kent Morlan)</author>
<link>http://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?n=G041177&amp;s=CA&amp;d=41376</link>
<description>Defendant Orange Park Community Association (OPCA)1 maintains and exercises control over a series of recreational trails on portions of the association common area (Civ. Code,  1351, subd. (b)). The trails border Broadmoor Park homes and Saddlehill development, OPCA residential developments in Orange Park Acres. The OPCA trails connect to a larger system of trails maintained by other assoc</description>
<pubDate>Tue, 22 Sep 2009 00:00:00 CST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Dennis Tulley &amp; a. v. William Sheldon &amp; a.</title>
<author>kent@morelaw.com (Kent Morlan)</author>
<link>http://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?n=2008-456&amp;s=NH&amp;d=41526</link>
<description>The plaintiffs, Dennis and Patricia Tulley, appeal the order of the Derry District Court (Stephen, J.) as it pertains to the denial of expert witness costs, attorneys fees, and prejudgment interest arising out of an action against the defendants, William and Deanna Sheldon. We affirm in part, reverse in part and remand.The record supports the following facts. On January 31, 2006, the parties en</description>
<pubDate>Fri, 18 Sep 2009 00:00:00 CST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Dennis Tulley &amp; a. v. William Sheldon &amp; a.</title>
<author>kent@morelaw.com (Kent Morlan)</author>
<link>http://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?n=2008-456&amp;s=NH&amp;d=41458</link>
<description>The plaintiffs, Dennis and Patricia Tulley, appeal the order of the Derry District Court (Stephen, J.) as it pertains to the denial of expert witness costs, attorneys fees, and prejudgment interest arising out of an action against the defendants, William and Deanna Sheldon. We affirm in part, reverse in part and remand.The record supports the following facts. On January 31, 2006, the parties en</description>
<pubDate>Fri, 18 Sep 2009 00:00:00 CST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>John Delois v. Barrett Block Partners, et al.</title>
<author>kent@morelaw.com (Kent Morlan)</author>
<link>http://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?n=A121665&amp;s=CA&amp;d=41380</link>
<description>In 2006, a dispute arose between plaintiff Delois, then a tenant of defendants in a live/work space on Harrison Street in San Francisco, and defendants. The dispute, described in more detail below, was purportedly resolved by a written agreement between the parties. But various and sundry factors led to alleged breaches of that agreement; in any event, plaintiff did not vacate the premises o</description>
<pubDate>Fri, 18 Sep 2009 00:00:00 CST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Auto Owners Insurance Company, Inc. v. Virginia T. Newman and Trinity Construction, Inc.</title>
<author>kent@morelaw.com (Kent Morlan)</author>
<link>http://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?n=26450&amp;s=SC&amp;d=41804</link>
<description>The issuer of a homebuilders commercial general liability policy sought a declaratory judgment to determine whether the policy covered a homeowners claim for damages caused by the negligence of a construction subcontractor.  The trial court determined that the homeowners claim fell within the policys coverage and this appeal followed.  We certified the case pursuant to Rule 204(b), SCA</description>
<pubDate>Tue, 8 Sep 2009 00:00:00 CST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Dennis W. Byars v. Staven G. Berg, et al.</title>
<author>kent@morelaw.com (Kent Morlan)</author>
<link>http://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?n=AC%2029642&amp;s=CT&amp;d=41198</link>
<description>The plaintiff,1 Dennis W. Byars, appeals from the summary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendants, Connecticut Condo Connection and Cathy Luciano.2 The plaintiff claims that the court improperly concluded that his claims are precluded under the doctrine of collateral estoppel. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.The following undisputed facts and procedural history ar</description>
<pubDate>Mon, 7 Sep 2009 00:00:00 CST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Creekridge Townhouse Owners Association, Inc. v. C. Scott Whitten, Inc.</title>
<author>kent@morelaw.com (Kent Morlan)</author>
<link>http://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?n=C058300&amp;s=CA&amp;d=41150</link>
<description>This is a construction defect case involving a reroofing of 11 buildings that house 61 units in a townhome community. The trial court granted summary judgment to the roofing defendants. The trial court found that the plaintiff townhome association did not meet the statute of limitations because the association had notice of a water moisture problem inside the window of one unit as a result of the </description>
<pubDate>Wed, 2 Sep 2009 00:00:00 CST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>FWT, Inc. v. Haskin Wallace Mason Property Management, LLP</title>
<author>kent@morelaw.com (Kent Morlan)</author>
<link>http://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?n=2-08-321-CV&amp;s=TX&amp;d=41231</link>
<description>Texas law is clear that a right of first refusal empowers its holder with a preferential right to purchase the subject property on the same terms offered by or to a bona fide purchaser.  Tenneco Inc. v. Enter. Prods. Co., 925 S.W.2d 640, 644 (Tex. 1996).  What is less clear is whether the holder of a preferential right who desires to exercise that right can be required under certain circumstances </description>
<pubDate>Fri, 28 Aug 2009 00:00:00 CST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Travelers Lloyds Insurance Company v. Dyna Ten Corporation</title>
<author>kent@morelaw.com (Kent Morlan)</author>
<link>http://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?n=2-08-502-CV&amp;s=TX&amp;d=41233</link>
<description>Travelers Lloyds Insurance Company appeals from a summary judgment in favor of Dyna Ten Corporation.  We reverse and remand.                                            BackgroundThe underlying facts are not in dispute.  See Tex. R. App. P. 38.2(a)(1)(B).  On or about August 1, 2005, an HVAC condenser water line ruptured on the fifth floor of AThe Tower@ condominium skyscraper in Fort Worth.  The r</description>
<pubDate>Wed, 26 Aug 2009 00:00:00 CST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Comcast of Florida, L.P. v. L'Ambiance Beach Condominium Association, Inc.</title>
<author>kent@morelaw.com (Kent Morlan)</author>
<link>http://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?n=4D08-2326&amp;s=FL&amp;d=41126</link>
<description>A conflict between a cable television provider and a condominium association forms the basis for this appeal. Comcast appeals an order upholding the condominium associations terminatio n of a cable television agreement, pursuant to section 718.302, Fla. Stat. (2002).1 It raises numerous issues concerning the validity of the termination. We find no error and affirm, but write to address the appl</description>
<pubDate>Wed, 26 Aug 2009 00:00:00 CST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Lisa K. Massad v. Sarah J. Greaves</title>
<author>kent@morelaw.com (Kent Morlan)</author>
<link>http://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?n=AC%2030194&amp;s=CT&amp;d=41205</link>
<description>If a lawsuit has been improperly removed from a state court to a federal court, federal law requires the federal court to order a remand and authorizes the federal court to make an award of costs and attorneys fees. See 28 U.S.C.  1447 (c).1 In the present case, the federal court made an award of attorneys fees and costs but directed that the supporting documentation justifying the amount </description>
<pubDate>Tue, 25 Aug 2009 00:00:00 CST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Riverwatch Condominium Owners Association v. Restoration Development Corproation</title>
<author>kent@morelaw.com (Kent Morlan)</author>
<link>http://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?n=938%20C.D.%202008&amp;s=PA&amp;d=41211</link>
<description>Riverwatch Condominium Owners Association (Association) appeals the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County (trial court) granting the summary judgment motion of Restoration Development Corporation (Restoration), affirming Restorations title to a disputed two-acre parcel of property, and Restorations right of access to that two-acre parcel across a portion of the Association</description>
<pubDate>Thu, 20 Aug 2009 00:00:00 CST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Developers of Solamar, LLC v. Gary Weinhauer and Donald F. Gudac</title>
<author>kent@morelaw.com (Kent Morlan)</author>
<link>http://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?n=2D08-4193&amp;s=FL&amp;d=41115</link>
<description>Developers of Solamar, LLC (Solamar), challenges the trial court's final summary judgment in favor of Gary Weinhauer, the purchaser, in an action for rescission of a contract for the purchase of a condominium.1 Concluding that, as a matter of law, the contract lacked "mutuality of obligations and mutuality of remedies," the trial court entered summary judgment granting Weinhauer the rescission. We</description>
<pubDate>Wed, 12 Aug 2009 00:00:00 CST</pubDate>
</item>
</channel></rss>

