SCHAEFER V. EASTMAN COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION 836 A.2d 752 (2003) CASE BRIEF

SCHAEFER V. EASTMAN COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION

836 A.2d 752 (2003)

NATURE OF THE CASE: Eastman (D) appealed a decision for Schaefer (P) in P's suit to enjoin the closure of a ski area and for damages for trespass, deceit, negligent misrepresentation, violation of N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. ch. 358-A, and ultra vires.

FACTS: D is a planned, private, four seasons, recreational community. The amenities include a golf course, tennis courts, an indoor pool, cross country skiing, hiking, and a lake with beaches and facilities for boating and swimming. Until September 1999, D also offered downhill skiing at its own ski area known as Snow Hill. D owns and maintains the recreational amenities. The residents of D own their homes and also own indivisible, equal interests in the common property. D is divided into special places. Each Special Place has its own Special Place Association, which consists of all property owners within the Special Place. Each member of a Special Place Association is entitled to vote on: (1) the election of representatives to the Association Council; (2) the matters affecting the conduct of the affairs of their Special Place; and (3) all matters affecting the conduct of the affairs of D by making recommendations to the appropriate bodies. The Articles of Agreement establish D as a non-profit corporation whose affairs shall be managed by a board of directors, subject to the powers and limitations set forth in the declaration. The declaration did not expressly bar closing Snow Hill or reserve to residents the right to determine if Snow Hill should be closed. On September 17, 1999, D voted eight to one to close Snow Hill and sell the chairlift to Whaleback. Ps sued to enjoin D from closing Snow Hill and selling the chairlift. D went about amending its declaration. Ps argued, and the superior court agreed, that the amendment to the declaration did not provide a lawful procedure for closing an amenity and thus the second vote to close Snow Hill ski area was invalid. The court agreed with Ps that D acted ultra vires. D appealed.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner