Ronald Schechter v. Society Hill East Condominium Association, Inc.

New Brunswick, New Jersey, pro se Plaintiff without a lawyer sued the Defendant on a breach of contract theory.



Defendant Society Hill East Condominium Association, Inc., appeals from an order of the Special Civil Part, Small Claims Section, entered after a bench trial, awarding plaintiff Ronald Schechter $1,600 as compensation for repairs he made to his unit, and $42 in court costs. The judge concluded plaintiff's damages related to defendant's failure to remediate defects in the condominium's common elements. Based upon our review of the record and applicable legal principles, we affirm.



Defendant is a New Jersey non-profit corporation that operates Society Hill East Condominiums in East Brunswick, a 414-unit complex. Plaintiff, a retired engineer, and his wife, have owned a unit at Society Hill and resided there for over forty years. Plaintiff also previously served as a member of the defendant's board for approximately five-and-a-half years.



As the trial record reveals, over a four-year period, plaintiff experienced repeated freezing of the toilet water supply line pipe located in a bathroom adjacent to an exterior wall. Plaintiff stated the pipe continued to freeze during inclement weather, despite his efforts to warm and insulate the pipe.



Commencing in February 2019, plaintiff submitted multiple, unsuccessful requests to defendant asking that it investigate and correct the issue related to the water supply pipe, which he asserted was defendant's responsibility under the relevant operating documents, because it was caused by a lack of insulation in the interior wall, a common element. After his initial work request on the pipe was "closed" without explanation, the supply line pipe froze again the following winter. Plaintiff insulated it himself, which prevented it from freezing for the rest of that winter and the next. In January 2022, plaintiff again filed a work request after temperatures plunged, and the water supply pipe once again froze.



In August 2022, plaintiff received a response from defendant's director of operations. In his letter, the director, despite acknowledging defendant "[was] responsible for the space between the unit's sheetrock and the . . . [exterior] wall," asserted defendant had "no legal duty to install insulation in that area and the board decided against voluntarily assum[ing] such a duty." The director also informed plaintiff the board concluded "this was not a common pipe [and] . . . only serviced [plaintiff's] unit."



The water supply line pipe again froze in February 2023, and plaintiff once more contacted defendant to address the issue. A September 2023 letter informed plaintiff that defendant's lawyer had determined "the cause of [plaintiff's] line freezing in [his] lower bathroom is isolated to [his] unit only." Defendant also stated as the pipe "is not considered a common element, . . . it is [plaintiff's] responsibility to repair." Defendant further explained "[i]f the [board were] to move forward with [plaintiff's] request . . ., [it] would be setting a precedent for other homeowners to come forward with the expectations [for] the same treatment."



Plaintiff continued to ask defendant to investigate and address the issue. In this regard, he forwarded a "[r]elease of [i]ndemnity" informing defendant he planned to proceed with repairs on October 16, 2023, that would "consist of the removal of the interior drywall behind the commode and a section of side wall." He also explained the "plumbing supply line to the commode [would] be shortened . . . [and] R[-]15 insulation [would] be installed." Plaintiff further informed defendant he "retained all rights to recover the cost of the repairs . . . either through direct payment or through the . . . [c]ourt system." Defendant never responded, and plaintiff accordingly proceeded with the repairs, which cost $1,600.



Plaintiff thereafter filed a small claims complaint demanding $2,109.87 in damages, plus costs, and alleged his claim was based on a "contract" with defendant. The amount requested represented the costs of the plumber and the additional expenses plaintiff incurred to insulate the water supply line pipe himself beginning in the winter of 2020.



Plaintiff specifically alleged he had "been ignored by the [b]oard . . . for [four] years." Plaintiff then proceeded to give a timeline of his complaints, beginning with the February 2019 request. As the matter proceeded in small claims court, defendant opted not to file an answer.



The judge held a one-day bench trial in which plaintiff and Jackie Thormador, Branch President of Associa Community Management of New Jersey (Associa) testified. According to Thormador, Associa acts as the "managing agent" for defendant and is responsible for overseeing the "day-today operations" including repairing common elements.



Plaintiff acknowledged "[the pipe] under normal circumstances . . . [would] be [his] responsibility to repair." He testified, based on his experience on the board for five-and-a-half years, "the [b]oard [would have] gone in and made repairs to . . . unit[s]" including damaged sheetrock from a faulty common element like a roof leak. Plaintiff provided exhibits and documentary evidence including his work orders for maintenance on the frozen water supply line pipe, his lawyer's demand letter, copies of defendant's response to his demand letter, photographs of the pipe and his efforts to solve the issue, the invoice reflecting the plumber's repair, and photographs of online weather trends and his

thermostat showing the frigid weather on the days he recounted the pipe freezing.



Plaintiff acknowledged the master deed specified "no owner shall make any structural modifications, or alterations, within a dwelling unit, without any written consent of [defendant]." Plaintiff stated in repairing the pipe, "the only . . . change was . . . the insulation was added to any area that had no insulation prior." He asserted "when [his] contractor pulled the sheetrock down, there was no additional insulation" in the area of the water supply line pipe.



Plaintiff acknowledged section one of the condominium bylaws requires "[e]ach member . . . [to] perform properly, and at his own risk, cost and expense, all maintenance or repair work, with respect to the portion of each unit, owned by that member, which does not comprise a part of the common elements" and section nine states, in part, "a member shall not make structural modifications or alterations, in its unit, or installations, located therein, without the written consent of [defendant]." Plaintiff also testified the plumber's invoice did not break down the cost of the repairs.



Thormador explained her understanding of the master deed and bylaws and stated, based upon her experience, the water supply line pipe "would be considered as part of the unit, and not a common element." She alleged

defendant attempted to inspect the water supply line before plaintiff went forward with the repair "to . . . make a determination . . . whether or not a common element was causing his issue." She also confirmed she had previously been in plaintiff's unit when plaintiff highlighted the pipe "to show [her] what the problem was." Finally, Thormador acknowledged that if a roof leak caused damage to the interior of a unit, defendant would have likely reimbursed the unit owner for those repairs.

Judgment in favor of the Plaintiff for $1,642.



Affirmed