Court Opinion

ID: 9652414
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 17:23:29.942164+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:51.177944
License: Public Domain

Mahady, J.,
concurring and dissenting. I respectfully dissent from Part II and Part IV of the majority’s opinion. As such, I would affirm the judgment of the trial court without modification.
The Court today promulgates a rule requiring an apportionment of damages under the facts of this case. The weight of authority is clearly to the contrary recognizing that a single-unit owner may recover all damages relating to the common areas. See, e.g., Starfish Condominium Ass’n v. Yorkridge Service Corp., 295 Md. 693, 458 A.2d 805 (1983); Tassan v. United Development Co., 88 Ill. App. 3d 581, 410 N.E.2d 902 (1980); Stony Ridge Hill Condominium Owners’ Ass’n v. Auerbach, 64 Ohio App. 2d 40, 410 N.E.2d 782 (1979).
Each unit owner is entitled to an undivided interest in the common areas and facilities which remains undivided unless the entire property is removed from condominium ownership. 27 V.S.A. § 1306(c). Each such owner is entitled to a *29conveyance to the property owners’ association of the common areas completed in a workmanlike manner. Unless this is accomplished, such an owner under the facts of this case cannot be made whole. The effect of the majority’s opinion is to penalize those unit owners who are entitled to such a recovery. Drexel Properties, Inc. v. Bay Colony Club Condominium, Inc., 406 So. 2d 515, 519-20 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981). The law should be more solicitous of these innocent consumers than of the tortfeasor-developer.
Moreover, the evidence supported an award of punitive damages by the trial court. That court found that the defendant refused to honor its contractual obligation concerning the provision of cable television service simply because it was unwilling to make the necessary expenditures. The trial court was fully justified in concluding that the defendant’s conduct amounted to “a ... wanton disregard of [the plaintiff’s] rights.” See King v. Brace, 150 Vt. 222, 225, 552 A.2d 398, 399 (1988).
I would affirm.