Opinion ID: 2156600
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Current Status of the Property

Text: Having established that IDC Properties and its predecessors failed to create units in the South, West, and North areas of the Goat Island South Condominium, we now review the current status of the property. Article 3.1 of the master declaration provides that the Condominium's Master Common Elements consist of all portions of the Project [ ]other than the Master Units[ ]. In addition, the master common elements include [t]he grounds    not within a Master Unit, and not designated as Master Limited Common Elements herein or on the Plats and Plans. When the declarant attempted to create master units in the South, West, and North areas, these units were intended only to comprise the airspace above the land defined in these parcels. The land underneath each master unit, on the other hand, was designated as master limited common elements allocated to the exclusive use of such Master Unit. In addition, the master declaration says that the master limited common elements are appurtenant to, associated with or reserved for each Master Unit. The master limited common elements are thus clearly subordinate to the master units that the declarant intended to create. We conclude, therefore, that those portions of airspace in the South, West, and North parcels that defendants and their predecessors intended to be master units are common elements because no units were created therein. The land underlying these units likewise is part of the common elements. Because no units were validly created, no master limited common elements appurtenant to them could be created. Consequently, these portions of the condominium always were, and remain, common elements. [6] A unit is not created simply by describing a parcel of real estate, whether or not it be airspace only, and designating it as a unit (or a master unit) in a declaration of condominium. There also must be compliance with the Act. To hold otherwise would negate the remedial purposes of its consumer protection provisions. We perceive the Rhode Island Condominium Act to be a careful attempt by the Legislature to strike a balance between a declarant's need for flexibility in creating a condominium and the interests of each individual unit owner in the enjoyment of his or her particular parcel of real estate. To that end, a declarant is permitted to reserve certain rights for future development, yet the unit purchaser is secured by the knowledge of what such rights are and the prescribed time limit within which they must be exercised. To adopt defendants' reasoning would thwart these salutary purposes. A declarant, by simply ascribing the status of unit to an undeveloped parcel of real estate, without complying with the Act's requirement of substantial completion, thereby would claim unto itself the right in perpetuity to construct any type of improvement consistent with applicable land use laws. Such a construction of the Act runs counter to the concept of common ownership that is the fundamental principle of a condominium. [7] We do not believe that to be the intent of the Legislature, and we decline to so interpret the Act. With the benefit of hindsight, we reconsider our statement in America Condominium I that title to the disputed parcels vested in the individual unit owners upon expiration of the defendants' development rights. These master units, so-called, always were common elements, subject to the exercise of said development rights, and title rested with the unit owners in common ownership from the creation of the condominium. For the reasons set forth herein, the relief sought in the defendants' petition for reargument is denied. The papers in this case are remanded to the Superior Court for proceedings in accordance with our opinion in America Condominium I.