Court Opinion

ID: 9569328
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:12:56.082784+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:53:51.279799
License: Public Domain

Benham, Judge,
dissenting.
While I agree with the first portion of the majority opinion as to Eaglewood’s right to sue First Federal for the sums due, I must dissent from the analysis applied and the conclusion reached in the latter portion of the decision. It is my opinion that the trial court did not err by including in the judgment the pro rata share of late charges, interest, attorney fees, expenses of litigation, and fair rental value of the foreclosed units. Those sums were properly assessed against the units before foreclosure and pursuant to OCGA § 44-3-109 (a) and (b) and the Declaration. I do not agree that First Federal is only liable for its pro rata share of the base assessments due on the property, and not a portion of the other fees. While it is true that under OCGA § 44-3-80 (f), appellant is not solely liable for the whole amount of the assessments chargeable to the property, it is responsible for a pro rata share of any and all assessments due and owing. The proviso in OCGA § 44-3-80 (f) states that “the unpaid share of an assessment or assessments shall be deemed to be common expenses collectable from all of the unit owners, including such holder or other person and his successors, successors-in-title, and assigns.” Under OCGA § 44-3-109 (a) and (b), the items about which appellant complains are categorized as “sums lawfully assessed by the association against any unit owner or condominium unit, whether for the share of the common expenses pertaining to that condominium unit or otherwise,” i.e., assessments. I interpret the statute as meaning that although First Federal’s status as the foreclosing first mortgagee protects it from a lien and singular liability for those items as assessments, it is still liable for them on a pro rata basis, as common expenses. The judgment clearly indicates that the amount awarded was determined on that basis. I would find no error and would affirm the judgment.
I am authorized to state that Presiding Judge Deen, Presiding Judge McMurray, and Presiding Judge Banke join in this dissent.
*608Decided March 18, 1988
Rehearing denied March 30, 1988
John P. Joiner, for appellant.
John J. Barrow, for appellee.