Opinion ID: 1215922
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Express statutory easement.

Text: The O'Bucks argue that they are entitled to their own installed antenna under AS 34.07.170, which provides: Each apartment owner has a nonexclusive easement for, and may use the common areas and facilities in accordance with the purpose for which they were intended without hindering or encroaching upon the lawful right of the other apartment owners. The roof of each condominium building is specifically designated a common area in article V, section 2 of the Declaration. The O'Bucks claim that because the antenna was a use for which [the roof was] intended and because it does not hinder ... or encroach upon the lawful right of the other apartment owners, they have an easement to install the antenna on the roof. We disagree. The superior court found, based on the testimony of several witnesses that the presence of television antennae on the roofs caused damage and leaks. The damage to the roofs led to the assessment of nearly $1,200 repair costs to each owner. Because the court below could reasonably have considered this cost to be an encroachment upon or hinderance of each unit owner's lawful right to have a good roof as a common area, we affirm its ruling that the O'Bucks do not have an express easement to install a television antenna under AS 34.07.170. [7]