Orten & Hindman recently obtained a successful judgment, including an award of attorney fees, in a case filed by a homeowner who protested the increase of special maintenance assessments. The case was a small claims court matter, which are normally tried and completed on the summons return date. However, due to the peculiarities of the case and the homeowner, the Court conducted two pretrial hearings and a half day trial subsequent to those hearings. The homeowner, who represented himself, filed numerous repetitive and redundant document requests with the Court and with the association. The Court found that most of those requests were excessive, irrelevant, and vexatious. The Court awarded attorney fees in favor of the association concerning those document requests. The Court also entered a preliminary restraining order finding that certain communications by the homeowner to board members constituted harassment and annoyance.

Turning to the merits of the case, the homeowner claimed the association did not have the authority to levy certain charges and expenses. The community had older covenants which did not provide specific authority for certain maintenance charge increases, for allocation of funds to reserves, nor for a method to allocate water charges among condominium units and townhomes. The homeowner challenged the association’s characterization of snow removal expenses as maintenance because the governing documents made no mention of snow removal, but only used the terminology “maintenance.” Because snow removal expenses varied greatly between townhomes and condominiums, the Court found it was appropriate for the association to allocate certain alley snow removal expenses to the townhomes. Based upon an historical record of similar activity by the association, coupled with careful budgeting and rational allocation formulas, the Court found the association had developed a fair and justifiable method for allocating expenses, and found the association had valid and reasonable reasons for treating townhomes differently from condominiums.

In most instances, small claims court cases will proceed to trial on the return date. Nevertheless, courts have discretion to exercise differential case management. Many judges view their courtrooms as a form of societal pressure-relief valve. Although more expensive for the association, in this instance the Court decided that a complete development of the issues would preclude the stubborn pro se homeowner from venting his frustrations in a more inappropriate manner.
[PRINTER FRIENDLY VERSION]