#81-06, Boone v. Seneca Knolls Condominium Association (August 29, 2007) (Panel: Fleischer, Gramzinski, Leeds)
The condominium owner (CO) complained that the condominium association (CA) was in violation of its rules by failing to fix properly several chronic leaks into her unit; she further claimed that the contractors used by the CA were incompetent and asked for the right to hire her own contractors to make repairs at the CA's expense.
The CA claimed that it had offered to repair any outstanding leaks and to complete all repairs necessary but that the CO would not permit the CA's contractors to enter her unit.
Before the hearing, the hearing panel issued two orders directing the CO to allow access to her unit for the limited purposes of fixing any ongoing leaks and so that the CA could examine the unit and determine what repairs were its responsibility to make and what they could cost.However, the CO persisted in denying access and the CA may have given her grounds to do so by giving her the impression it intended to enter her unit to make all repairs before the hearing.
The CO finally allowed access to her unit to the CA.At that time, it was discovered that there were no ongoing leaks and that the CO had made all the repairs she deemed necessary before the CA had had a chance to inspect the unit.The CA then made a motion to dismiss the complaint without a hearing.
The hearing panel held that by making the repairs without permission, the CO had prevented the CA from gathering relevant evidence to defend itself at a hearing.Furthermore, the CO had made the main part of her complaint moot.Therefore, the panel dismissed this part of the complaint with prejudice as a penalty for having violated its orders.
The panel then dealt with other complaints raised by the CO during the course of the case.The CO had requested punitive damages, personal property damages, lost wages, loss of market value to her unit, and compensation for personal and emotional injuries.The panel ruled that under Section 10B-8(3) and (4), the Commission had no jurisdiction of such claims, and dismissed them without a hearing.