It does not have authority to litigate "the particular claim of an individual unit owner." Golub v. Milpo, 402 Mass. 397, 401, 522 N.E.2d 954 (1988). Therefore, in cases in which a condition on a common area harms only one unit, unit owners have had standing to sue regarding the common area.
" While there are few specific cases dealing with insurance claims and condominiums, under G.L.c. 183A, "the trustees act only for the benefit of all the unit owners." Golub v. Milpo, Inc., 402 Mass. 397 (1988) quoting Glickman v. Brown, 21 Mass. App. Ct. 229, 236 (1985). A condominium association cannot compromise a unit owner's claim against a developer for damage to a unit caused by a leaky roof. Golub v. Milpo,Inc., 402 Mass. 397 (1988).
"This division between individual and common rights is basic to the theory of condominium ownership." Golub v. Milpo, Inc., 402 Mass. 397, 401-402 (1988), citing Rohan, The "Model Condominium Code" — A Blueprint for Modernizing Condominium Legislation, 78 Colum. L. Rev. 587, 587 n. 3 (1978), and Schwartz, Condominium: A Hybrid Castle in the Sky, 44 B.U. L. Rev. 137, 139 (1964). "It affords an opportunity to combine the legal benefits of fee simple ownership with the economic advantages of joint acquisition and operation of various amenities including recreational facilities, contracted caretaking, and security safeguards" (footnote omitted).
“The power of trustees ‘[t]o conduct litigation ... involving the common areas and facilities' includes the power to settle claims prior to or in the course of litigation.” Golub v. Milpo, Inc., 402 Mass. 397, 401, 522 N.E.2d 954 (1988), quoting from c. 183A, § 10(b )(4). Accordingly, on our reading, § 10(j ) serves to preclude the declarant's use of trust funds for its own purposes in the initial phases of the project, as specified therein.
It is quite another thing when the association, representing all its members, does act and opts to resolve the dispute differently, without enforcement of the bylaws. Generally speaking, a homeowners association has the power to release or compromise any claim it has the right to assert, and to do so over the objections of individual homeowners, who then are bound by the association's resolution of the claim.See Frantz v. CBI Fairmac Corp., 229 Va. 444, 331 S.E.2d 390, 395 (1985) (holding that "because a unit owners' association has the authority ... to assert a claim for the violation of a common right, it necessarily has the authority to compromise the claim" over the objection of individual unit holders, all of whom are "bound by the compromise"); Golub v. Milpo, Inc., 402 Mass. 397, 522 N.E.2d 954, 957–58 (Mass. 1988) (explaining that association's power to conduct litigation relating to common areas and facilities "includes the power to settle claims prior to or in the course of litigation" on behalf of the unit owners). I do not suggest, however, that a homeowner's association may release or compromise an individual member's claim against a third party for damages to the member's personal property (as opposed to the common elements).
Greater Lawrence Sanitary Dist. v. North Andover, 439 Mass. 16, 20–21, 785 N.E.2d 337 (2003), quoting Augat, Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 410 Mass. 117, 120, 571 N.E.2d 357 (1991), and Commonwealth v. One 1987 Mercury Cougar Auto., 413 Mass. 534, 536, 600 N.E.2d 571 (1992). "A court must deny a motion for summary judgment if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, there exist genuine issues of material fact...." Golub v. Milpo, Inc., 402 Mass. 397, 400, 522 N.E.2d 954 (1988). See Mass. R. Civ. P. 56(c), 365 Mass. 824 (1974).
2. Standard of review. "A court must deny a motion for summary judgment if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, there exist genuine issues of material fact. . . ."Locator Servs. Group, Ltd. v. Treasurer Receiver Gen., 447 Mass. 837, 846 (2005), quoting Golub v. Milpo, Inc., 402 Mass. 397, 400 (1988). See Mass. R. Civ. P. 56 (c), as amended, 436 Mass. 1404 (2002).
"A court must deny a motion for summary judgment if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, there exist genuine issues of material fact. . . ." Golub v. Milpo, Inc., 402 Mass. 397, 400 (1988), citing Mass. R. Civ. P. 56 (c). The plaintiff has presented evidence that the known side effects of Sacca's medication included drowsiness, lightheadedness, and altered consciousness.
Discussion. "A court must deny a motion for summary judgment if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party [the plaintiff here], there exist genuine issues of material fact or the moving party is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Golub v. Milpo, Inc., 402 Mass. 397, 400 (1988). See Mass. R. Civ. P. 56 (c).
"A court must deny a motion for summary judgment if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, there exist genuine issues of material fact. . . ." Golub v. Milpo, Inc., 402 Mass. 397, 400 (1988). See Mass. R. Civ. P. 56 (c), 365 Mass. 824 (1974).