Opinion ID: 1988985
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Condominium Act

Text: In 1982, the Legislature adopted chapter 36.1 of title 34, entitled the Rhode Island Condominium Act (the act). The act essentially incorporated the language contained in the Uniform Condominium Act and was made applicable to any condominium created in Rhode Island after July 1, 1982. See § 34-36.1-1.02(a)(1). The condominium presently at issue was created in 1988; accordingly, the master declaration and its purported amendments are controlled by the act. The resolution of the issues raised in this appeal depends, for the most part, upon our statutory interpretation of the act, and whether the disputed master declaration and its amendments conform with that interpretation. First, we must address whether, as plaintiffs assert in their brief, the Uniform Condominium Act is a consumer statute that regulates the terms under which condominiums are established and managed. We review de novo questions of statutory interpretation. Interstate Navigation Co. v. Division of Public Utilities and Carrieres of the State of Rhode Island, 824 A.2d 1282, 1287 (R.I.2003) (citing Stebbins v. Wells, 818 A.2d 711, 715 (R.I. 2003)). When construing a statute `our ultimate goal is to give effect to the purpose of the act as intended by the Legislature.' Id. (quoting Oliveira v. Lombardi, 794 A.2d 453, 457 (R.I.2002)). In construing statutes, this Court `adhere[s] to the basic proposition of establishing and effectuating the intent of the Legislature[,    which] is accomplished from an examination of the language, nature, and object of the statute.' In re Estate of Gervais, 770 A.2d 877, 880 (R.I.2001) (per curiam) (quoting State v. Pelz, 765 A.2d 824, 829-30 (R.I.2001)). If the language of a statute is clear on its face, then its plain meaning must generally be given effect. Id. (quoting Skating v. Aetna Insurance Co., 742 A.2d 282, 290 (R.I.1999)). Nonetheless, [i]t is a well-known maxim of statutory interpretation that this Court `will not construe a statute to reach an absurd [or unintended] result.' Id. (quoting Hargreaves v. Jack, 750 A.2d 430, 435 (R.I.2000)). When it enacted the act, the Legislature authorized and directed the secretary of state to insert the official comments to the Uniform Condominium Act (1980). Unless the statutory language clearly and expressly states otherwise, those comments are to be used as guidance concerning the legislative intent in adopting the chapter. See Compiler's Notes to § 34-36.1-1.01 (citing P.L.1982, ch. 329, § 3). [14] In addition, any right or obligation declared by this chapter is enforceable by judicial proceeding and the remedies shall be liberally administered   . Section 34-36.1-1.12. The Act as a whole contains a strong consumer protection flavor   . One Pacific Towers Homeowner's Association v. HAL Real Estate Investments, Inc., 148 Wash.2d 319, 61 P.3d 1094, 1100 (2002) (observing that the Washington Condominium Act significantly corresponds to the Uniform Condominium Act). That is because, [o]ne of the reasons the Uniform Act was created was that there was a perceived need for additional consumer protection. Id. Furthermore, [w]hen there exists a dominance of control by one owner, it becomes more important to allow minority owners greater participation in the administration of the commonly owned property, and increases the need for the majority owner to follow all the statutes and the declaration. Artesani v. Glenwood Park Condominium Association, 750 A.2d 961, 963 (R.I.2000) (per curiam). Section 34-36.1-1.04 states that, [e]xcept as expressly provided in this chapter, any agreements to vary the provisions or waive the rights conferred by the statute are prohibited. See also Commissioners' Comment to § 34-36.1-1.04 (stating that this section adopts the approach of prohibiting variation by agreement except in those cases where it is expressly permitted by the terms of the Act itself). Consequently, [i]n many instances    provisions of the Act may not be varied, because of the need to protect purchasers, lenders, and declarants. Id. One of the consumer protections in this Act is the requirement for consent by specified percentages of unit owners to particular actions or changes in the declaration. Id. Accordingly, [i]n order to prevent declarants from evading these requirements by obtaining powers of attorney from all unit owners, or in some other fashion controlling the votes of unit owners, this section forbids the use by a declarant of any device to evade the limitations or prohibitions of the Act or of the declaration.  Id. (Emphasis added.) The Rhode Island Condominium Act is a consumer protection statute.