Court Opinion

ID: 9758713
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 23:41:01.216917+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:54.221185
License: Public Domain

HILL, Justice,
dissenting, with whom GOLDEN, Justice, joins.
[T42] I dissent because I am convinced the majority fails to rely on the "best evidence" available to the Court, in resolving the only thorny issue in this case. From the outset, the Steigers contended that the Association did not have the legal authority to pursue this action. As is often the case with such associations, it is sometimes difficult to get out "the base" when it comes time to vote. However, the Association only needed 10% of the lot owners in order to constitute a quorum. There were 95 lots, so rounding off (and upward) it took 10 lot owners to constitute a quorum. The best evidence of attendance was the minutes of the critical meeting and those minutes reflected that 183 "persons" were present, not 15, not 20-183. The president of the Association testified that most were couples who represented only a single lot. The president agreed that would not amount to 10 lots, which is the absolute minimum needed to conduct such serious business. Despite "memory" testimony somewhat to the contrary, I believe the Steigers were entitled to rely on the official records of the Association since such records existed, rather than on the vagaries of memory.
[d48] I would reverse and remand this case to the district court with instructions that the complaint be dismissed.