Opinion ID: 2287139
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: PERSON UNDER THE Pa.U.T.P.C.P.L.

Text: Neither Mameco nor the trial court questioned the Condominium Association's status as a person, under the Pa.U.T.P.C.P.L. Nonetheless, as we find the Condominium Association's status as a person relevant with regard to the third requirement (relating to the primary purpose of the purchase), we discuss this requirement briefly. Under 73 P.S. § 201-2, the term person (as used in 73 P.S. § 201-9.2) is defined as follows: (2) Person means natural persons, corporations, trusts, partnerships, incorporated or unincorporated associations, and any other legal entities. 73 P.S. § 201-2(2). (Emphasis added). Incorporated associations fall squarely within the express definition of the term person as used in 73 P.S. § 201-9.2. The Condominium Association involved here is an incorporated non-profit condominium association organized pursuant to 68 Pa.C.S.A. § 3301 et seq. As such, it was empowered to act in a representative capacity on behalf of its constituent unit owners to sue, enter into contracts, and to regulate the maintenance, repair, and replacement of common elements of the condominium building, including its roof. 68 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3302(a)(4-7). In 1000 Grandview Association v. Mt. Washington Association, 290 Pa.Super. 365, 434 A.2d 796 (1981), this Court held that even in absence of express legislative authorization for an incorporated association of condominium unit owners to sue in a representative capacity on behalf of unit members, representative standing would nonetheless be recognized generally. 434 A.2d at 797-98. In that case, we noted the repeal of the Unit Property Act and the adoption of the Uniform Condominium Act which removed any lingering doubt on the issue of representative standing in future cases (such as the instant case) by expressly authorizing condominium associations sue on behalf of the unit owners. The Condominium Association was a person under the Pa.U.T.P.C.P.L.