Opinion ID: 4535545
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Managerial Disarray

Text: The Novaks first argue that the Tilburys intentionally misrepresented the HOA’s state of affairs by failing to inform them of the alleged “disarray.” Yet they point to no evidence showing that the Tilburys sought to hide the HOA’s managerial dealings. The Novaks cite to an email thread dated October 2015, when the Tilburys’ real estate agent, discussing the Novaks’ struggles with the HOA, remarked, “I’m glad we got you guys out of there!” Jenny Tilbury replied, “They ought to sue him [a St. Maxent board member]. He is required by the by-laws to disclose that information.” But nothing about these emails— sent months after the sale was completed—suggests the Tilburys intentionally hid information from the Novaks before the sale. The Novaks’ negligence claim also fails. The Novaks argue that the Tilburys withheld important HOA documents, including financial certificates and the revised bylaws that forbid nine-month leases. They rely on § 9:1124.107 of the Louisiana Condominium Act (LCA), which requires unit owners provide these documents. The district court held that a plaintiff may not seek damages under a negligent misrepresentation theory for a unit seller’s noncompliance with the LCA. Section 9:1124.107(C) explains that the consequence of non-compliance is that “the contract to purchase is voidable by the purchaser until a certificate has been provided and for five days thereafter or until conveyance, whichever first occurs.” The court stressed that this language makes no reference to damages, and that it actually discourages other remedies by stating that a “unit owner is not liable to a purchaser for the failure or delay of the association to provide the certificate in a timely manner.” § 9:1124.107(C). The district court is correct that the LCA’s language prevents the Novaks from arguing months after the sale that they were not provided financial certificates. The remedy was clear: they could have voided the contract, and 4 Case: 19-30789 Document: 00515422548 Page: 5 Date Filed: 05/20/2020 No. 19-30789 they chose not to. With respect to the bylaws, however, the Novaks do not allege that the Tilburys failed to provide a copy but rather an accurate copy, a fact they only discovered months after the sale. The LCA cannot be read as forbidding a claim for negligent misrepresentation in this instance. Even so, the Novaks’ claim still fails. As the Novaks argued in their lawsuit against St. Maxent, the bylaws were not properly amended in 2006 because the amendment was not filed in Orleans Parish’s conveyance records as required by law. The district court agreed, concluding that the amendment was not properly filed until April 2016. Because the amendment was unrecorded, the Tilburys were not negligent for failing to provide the Novaks the amended bylaws. Summary judgment was therefore appropriate on this claim.