Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Meadowbrook Condominium Ass'n v. South Burlington Realty Corp.
Supreme Court of Vermont
Decided June 23, 1989No. 85-563Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partMahady, J.
I respectfully dissent from Part II and Part IV of the majority’s opinion. As such, I would affirm the judgment of the trial court without modification.
The Court today promulgates a rule requiring an apportionment of damages under the facts of this case. The weight of authority is clearly to the contrary recognizing that a single-unit owner may recover all damages relating to the common areas. See, e.g., Starfish Condominium Ass’n v. Yorkridge Service Corp., 295 Md. 693, 458 A.2d 805 (1983); Tassan v. United Development Co., 88 Ill. App. 3d 581, 410 N.E.2d 902 (1980); Stony Ridge Hill…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Tassan v. United Development Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1980
- Starfish Condominium Ass'n v. Yorkridge Service Corp.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1983
- Drexel Properties, Inc. v. BAY COLONY, ETC.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1981
- Stony Ridge Hill Condominium Owners Ass'n v. AuerbachOhio Court of Appeals · 1979
- King v. BraceSupreme Court of Vermont · 1988