Real Estate Law

Plaintiff, a member and manager of a condominium building, filed a one-count complaint against defendants, owners of one condo unit, for specific performance, seeking a court order requiring the defendants to fulfill the terms of a sales contract plaintiffs entered into to sell the condominium building. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants and plaintiff appealed. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the meeting where the sales contract was approved was invalid for lack of proper notice and that plaintiff failed to demonstrate that there was any genuine issue of material fact regarding the defendants’ affirmative defenses that defeated plaintiff’s complaint for specific performance. (C.A. WALKER and TAILOR, concurring)

Plaintiff filed a lawsuit alleging that the defendant’s proposed construction of a gymnasium annex to an existing elementary school violated the restrictive covenants on the land of the proposed building site. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss and the trial court dismissed the complaint with prejudice finding that it was barred by res judicata because the plaintiff previously had sought to prevent the construction of the elementary school on the same grounds. Plaintiff appealed, arguing that the trial court erred when it found res judicata applied to the current lawsuit, in dismissing the complaint with prejudice, in dismissing the complaint without ruling on a zoning ordinance violation claim in a proposed amended complaint, and in denying the plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the trial court did not err in dismissing the complaint on res judicata grounds, explaining that construction of the annex was an extension of the decision the circuit court previously made regarding the legality of construction of the school. (MITCHELL and MIKVA, concurring)

Plaintiff, a condominium association, filed a lawsuit against a condominium owner alleging that she had violated association rules by invading the building’s common elements when she raised the ceiling height in her unit without seeking prior approval from the board of directors. The parties filed cross motions for summary judgment and the trial court found in favor of the association and entered monetary damages against the defendant. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the trial court did not err when it entered summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff and agreed with the trial court’s findings that the defendant was provided sufficient notice of the alleged rule violation and that the board properly ratified its prior determination that the ceiling renovation violated the rules. The appellate court further concluded that the trial court did not err in its calculation of monetary damages. (BRENNAN and ALBRECHT, concurring)