Opinion
12-P-94
12-19-2012
CARY PLACE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION v. GABRIEL RIVERA & another.
NOTICE: Decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to its rule 1:28 are primarily addressed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, rule 1:28 decisions are not circulated to the entire court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. A summary decision pursuant to rule 1:28, issued after February 25, 2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted above, not as binding precedent.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
A judge of the District Court allowed the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, ruling that the defendants owed $77,468 in unpaid condominium association fees. The defendants appealed to the Appellate Division of the District Court Department, which affirmed, and the defendants have appealed to this court from the corresponding judgment.
It appears the defendants' principal concern is rooted in their claim that the current trustees (or managers) of the plaintiff condominium association were not properly elected. As a consequence, the defendants have refused to pay condominium fees for the several units they own.
Regardless of the many issues raised, all of which we have reviewed and find meritless, it appears to be settled law that condominium fees must be paid in the present circumstances. 'Whatever grievance a unit owner may have against the condominium trustees must not be permitted to affect the collection of lawfully assessed common area expense charges. A system that would tolerate a unit owner's refusal to pay an assessment because the unit owner asserts a grievance, even a seemingly meritorious one, would threaten the financial integrity of the entire condominium operation. For the same reason that taxpayers may not lawfully decline to pay lawfully assessed taxes because of some grievance or claim against the taxing governmental unit, a condominium unit owner may not decline to pay lawful assessments. If there were to be an exception to this principle, it would be due to extraordinary circumstances not shown on the record before us.'
Trustees of the Prince Condominium Trust v. Prosser, 412 Mass. 723, 725-726 (1992). Likewise, there were no extraordinary circumstances here.
Given the clear state of the law and the conduct of the defendants, appellate attorney's fees and costs for the plaintiff are appropriate and so ordered. Contrast Pierce v. Clark, 66 Mass. App. Ct. 912, 915 (2006). The plaintiff is to submit, within fourteen days of the rescript, the specific amount requested, along with a breakdown of all fees and costs and supporting documentation. See Fabre v. Walton, 441 Mass. 9, 10-11 (2004). The defendants may then, within seven days thereafter, submit a response challenging the requested amounts.
We deny the defendants' request for attorney's fees and costs.
See ibid.
Decision and order of the Appellate Division affirmed.
By the Court (Kantrowitz, Berry & Grainger, JJ.),