First published: Jul 2024
Window Drama
TAKEAWAY: This decision exemplifies some of the difficulties that condominiums may have in maintaining the building’s exterior envelope when the governing documents classify the windows as part of the unit and not part of the common elements. Window replacements are notoriously expensive and difficult to coordinate, and yet may be increasingly necessary as buildings age and energy efficiency compliance mandates ratchet up. In this case, the many apparent benefits of a coordinated building-wide replacement program were not enough to persuade the court to give the board dominion over the unit owners’ “private property.” This case may be distinguishable from other otherwise similar situations in that it appears that the board never made a finding that the plaintiffs’ specific windows were damaged or otherwise needed to be replaced. If the board had been armed with a finding from an engineer that these particular windows had failed, perhaps the unit owners could have been compelled to join the replacement program as part of their contractual duty to keep their apartment in good repair. Here, however, there were allegations in the record that the plaintiffs’ particular windows were in good condition.
MANGOLD V. BOARD OF MANAGERS OF MEADOW COURT CONDOMINIUM
WHAT HAPPENED: The board of Meadow Court Condominium, a 100-year-old building in Westchester, adopted a policy for replacing the building’s exterior windows. They needed to replace energy inefficient windows that had outlived their intended life and usefulness, and there were significant economies of scale to be realized if the building could replace the building’s windows in one comprehensive program at bulk discount rates. The program required unit owners to replace their windows with a specific type upon any transfer of ownership, but no later than three years from the adoption of the policy. Anyone who did not comply with the board’s policy was subject to fines.
The problem was that under the condominium’s declaration, “windows which open from a unit shall be deemed part of a unit” and not part of the common elements. This means that the unit owners and not the board owns the windows, and therefore the unit owners could not be compelled to replace them just because the board adopted a policy. Despite that limitation, almost every unit owner in the building supported the board’s program – except for Mangolds, the owners of one sixth-floor apartment. They brought a lawsuit to invalidate the policy.
In response, the board amended its bylaws to give the board the express authority to require a unit owner to replace an original window at the unit owner’s sole cost and expense. Again, that bylaw amendment was supported by every unit owner but the Mangolds.
IN COURT: In a decision issued April 29, 2024, the court sided with the plaintiffs over the board and declared that the window replacement policy was unenforceable: “[A]s the declaration indicates that individual windows are not common elements, plaintiffs cannot be compelled to replace their individual windows, nor can they be compelled to pay for the replacement of other unit owners’ windows in which they have no property interest.”
The court also invalidated the bylaw amendment purporting to give the board authority to require window replacements, because the condominium did not also amend the declaration to reclassify the windows as common elements. So long as the windows were the property of the unit owners, the board could not mandate their replacement.
COUNSEL For Meadow Court Condominium Board & Skyline Windows JONATHAN KOLBRENER Braverman Greenspun / For the Mangolds STEPHEN VENERUSO Veneruso, Curto, Schwartz and Curto / Judge Paul A. Goetz
