Title: Association of Apartment Owners of Ahuimanu Gardens v. Flint

State: hawaii

Issuer: Hawaii Supreme Court

Document:

*** NOTFOR PUBLICATION ***

 

No, 26826

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAT'T

 

ASSOCIATION OF APARTMENT OWNERS OF AHUIMANU GARDENS,
by its Board of Directors, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs. 2 8

 

ELIZABETH N, FLINT, Defendant-Appellant.

  

APPEAL FROM THE FIRST CIRCUIT COURT 2
(CIV. NO. 04-1-0100)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER 3S

(By: Moon, C.J., Levinson, Nakayama, Acoba, and Duffy, JJ.)

Defendant-Appellant Elizabeth N. Flint appeals from the
Circust Court of the First Circuit's August 19, 2004 final
judgment.! Flint contends that the circuit court erred in
granting summary judgment to Plaintiff-Appellee, Association of
Apartment Owners of Ahuimanu Gardens (the Association), by its
Board of Directors (the Board). Flint asserts that her right to
exclusive ownership and possession of her condominium unit under
Hawai'i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 514A-5 (1993) (repealed 2004)?
trumps the Board's power to treat termite infestation in the
common elements by tent fumigation of the building in which her
unit is located. The sole issue on appeal is whether the circuit
court was correct in finding no genuine issues of material fact

and that the Board was entitled to judgment as a matter of law

‘The Honorable Sert I. Ayabe presided over this matter

 

+ HRS § 5148-8 provides, in zelevant part: “The apartment omer is
entitled to the exclusive omership and possession of the apartment.”

ase
*** NOTFOR PUBLICATION ***

 

because the Board has the authority to treat termite infestation
in the common elements of the condominium building by tent

fumigation. See Coon v, City and County of Honolulu, 98 Hawas't :
233, 244-45, 47 P.3d 348, 359-60 (2002) (“We review the circuit

 

court’s grant or denial of sunmary judgment de novo.”

upon carefully reviewing the record and the briefs
submitted by the parties, and having given due consideration to
the arguments advocated and the issue raised, we:hold:

(2) The Bylaws are determinative of whether the Board
has the authority to contract for tent fumigation services as a
method of termite treatment of the connon elements in this
condominium building. See HRS § 514A-81 (1993) (repealed 2004)
(“The operation of the property shall be governed by the
bylaws."); HRS § 5140-3 (1993) (repealed 2004) (**Operation of
the property’ means and includes . . . the maintenance [and]
repair . . . [of] the connon elenents.”);

(2) The Board’s power and duty to maintain the common

elements, in the interest of the Association, outweighs Flint’s

 

Fight to exclusive ownership and possession, and Flint must
therefore comply with the decision of the Board. See The Bylaws,
Article IV, § 2 (the Board of Directors shall have the following
powers and duties: (a) To manage, operate, care and maintain the
property of this condominium property regime, the connon elements

Ass'n of ow f Kukui Plaza

 

and Limited common elements.”
*** NOTFOR PUBLICATION ***

vy. City and County of Honolulu, 7 Haw. App. 60, 74, 742 P.2d 974,
983 (1967) ("The uniqueness of the condominium concept of
ownership has caused the law to recognize that each unit owner
must give up sone degree of freedom of choice he might otherwise
enjoy in separate, privately owned property.”) (Quotation marks
omitted); River Terrace Condo. Ass‘n v. Levis, 514 N.E.2d 732,

735-36 (Ohio Ct. App. 1986) (*[WJhile the owner of @ unit has

 

exclusive ownership of and responsibility for his unit, . . . the
owner's freedom of action is of necessity limited by the fact
that the unit is one of many units . . . ."); The Declaration,
Part I. ("[E]ach owner, tenant, or occupant of a family unit
shall comply with the provisions of this Declaration, the Bylaws,
the decisions and resolutions of the Association or its

ntative . 6. .")F

 

(3) Despite its lack of express authority in the
Bylaws, the Board’s broad authority to do all things necessary

for the operation of the Association includ

 

the authority to
require Flint to temporarily vacate her unit so that termite
Anfestation in the conmon elements may be treated by tent
fumigation of the building in which she owns and occupies a unit.
The Bylaws state:

the Board of Directors have were and du
SSE fine may do ali-such acte-and things as ar© not
by law or by these Bylaws Girected to be exercised and done
By the own

 
*** NOTFOR PUBLICATION ***

 

foreaoing, the Board of Directors shall have the following
Powers and duties...

‘The Bylaws, Article IV, § 2 (emphases added). Thus, the absence
of any provision explicitly authorizing the Board to require a
condominium unit owner to temporarily vacate her unit is not
fatal to the Board's right to do sc. See Beachwood Villas Condo.
ve Poor, 448 So. 2d 1143, 1245 (Fla. App. 1984) (“It would be
impossible to list all restrictive uses in a declaration of
condominium.”); O"Buck v, Cottonwood Village Condo, Ass’n. Inca,
750 P.24 813, 816 (Alaska 1988) (quoting same);

(4) The Board’s decision to treat termite infestation
in the common elements by tent fumigation is reasonable and made
in good faith, and thus, should be upheld. See McNamee v. Bishop
Trust Cou, Ltda, 62 Haw. 397, 407, 616 P.2d 205, 211 (1980)
(holding that the decision of @ managing conmittee of a community
association will be upheld as long as the decision is “reasonable

and in good faith[.]"). Therefore,

 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the circuit court's
August 19, 2004 final judgment granting summary judgment against
Flint is affirmed.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, December 2, 2005.

on the briefs: Gor

John A. Morris and Shes hor nae
Mi Yung C. Park

(of Ashford & Wriston) Dsus Cr eerleeyanee
for plaintiff-appellee

Association of Apartment

Owners of Ahuimanu Gardens

 

&, Dabls e
*** NOTFOR PUBLICATION ***

 

Corey ¥.8. Park and
Pamela S. Bunn

(of Paul Johnson Park & Niles)
for defendant-appellant
Elizabeth N, Flint