Condominium Decks Collapse -- Who is Responsible

Wildwood Missouri residents who reside at the Sandalwood Creek Condominium Community need to look up at all times, especially to avoid  collapsing decks.  A deck attached to a residential unit collapsed this past Memorial Day when four people were standing on it.  All four are now in the hospital.

County officials came to the scene to evaluate all of the decks in the community and the news is not good.  It appears they may not meet current code requirements and some news reports report findings that other deck collapses in the community are foreseeable.

The decks are 30 years old and it appears many have not been properly maintained.  Some appear to be rotting.   One news crew found a decks that was visibly sagging, suggesting that it may be next in line.

So --who is responsible to repair these decks?    Of course it depends on state law and the association documents.  But in many instances, the homeowner will be responsible.

The reason is that these decks are often called "limited" common elements.  They are common elements because they fall beyond the "finished walls in."  But they are "limited," because only the adjoining unit owner can enjoy them, or in this case fall from them.  In these cases often it is the unit owner who must maintain, and if need be replace, the deck structure.

Some news reports suggest that this is the case in Wildwood Missouri.  But everyone may not agree and ultimately a Court may have to interpret the documents in question.

Who ever is responsible aside, decks must routinely inspected and maintained.  And they must be replaced when they are no longer safe.  Even if common funds will not be used to do this, the Association usually has the inherent right to ensure that this work is undertaken on a regular basis.

Stuart Lieberman Is an attorney with Princeton's Lieberman & Blecher.    The firm represents community associations in New Jersey and New York.  www.liebermanblecher.com

Community Associations Should Not be Anti-Mezuzah

I represent community associations in New Jersey and I have represented clients against many others. Community associations definitely come in all shapes, sizes and flavors. Very little surprises me any more. Some surprises are pleasant, others are less so.


One issue that is very important in every community association is the concept of respect. People in community associations have some measure of interdependence. They need each other to survive.

And this means that people must interact, must work together, and therefore must treat each other with respect. Disrespect is a sign that a community association is heading in the wrong direction. Especially when the Board members, the leaders of the community, are the ones who are failing to respect.
Respect means listening while others speak. It means not always thinking you are right – but instead encouraging various points of view. And respect means tolerating or better yet celebrating, each other’s sexual orientation, religion, and other personal characteristics.

The mezuzah issue is becoming emblematic of this issue. A mezuzah is a small covered portion of the Jewish holy scroll that is mounted on a door post. Many Jews place these on their exterior doorposts, which may be common elements. Some Boards have tried to members from installing mezuzahs on door posts.

While perhaps technically correct, this is disrespectful. It directly interferes with a Jewish person’s right to practice his or her religion. Others religions have similar requirements and they too must be accommodated.

Maybe quite literally, the Board does not have to cooperate. But respect means going past the minimum and doing what is just plain right. If we can’t respect each other, after all, then it will be very hard to live together.

If an association is not allowing installation of religious items, then I suggest having a private meeting with the Board and educating the Board members. Often these issues arise out of misunderstandings.

If that does not work, you may seek alternate dispute resolution. This should probably fix your problem.

If that does not work, judicial relief is an option. Several of these cases have been litigated recently and often with favorable results.
But remembers 2 things. Litigation is costly. And litigation is always a very last resort. After all, when the case is over, you will still live in the same community with the same people. Suing your neighbor does not always support a warm and fuzzy relationship.

Lieberman & Blecher practices environmental law and community association law in New Jersey. www.liebermanblecher.com

NJ Homeowner Associations: Avoid Very Limiting Sign Rules

In the case MAZDABROOK COMMONS HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION v. WASIM KHAN. an appeals court found a condominium association's rule concerning signs was unconsitutuional. The case was decided last week.

Two things are noteworthy about this Assocition. First in my humble opinion it has very extreme penalty prolicy. They tried to fine a unit owner thousands of dollars over a rose bush -- Give me a break.

And they outlawed all signs except real estate "for sale" signs. Unit owners were limited to one "for sale" sign. The Court found that this favored commercial speech and was not supportable.

"In the present case, we have a regulation that is not content neutral, and indeed it favors commercial speech. It is broadly drawn so as to foreclose an entire type of communication that has long been recognized as significant. Additionally, it regulates the free speech rights of residents within their condominium units."

Sign rules that favor commercial speech may be invalidated. Does your rule meet this test?