Legal Opinion · Dissent

Madowitz v. Woods at Killington Owners' Ass'n

Supreme Court of Vermont

Decided July 2, 2010No. 08-502Published

1Dissent

Dooley, J.,

¶ 28. dissenting. The flaw in the majority’s decision and rationale lies in its statement, “we agree with the Association that there is something troubling about the discrepancy between the declaration and the deeds and powers of attorney.” Ante, ¶ 22. Rather than acting on what it finds troubling, the majority enables developers to perpetrate a consumer fraud on the condominium purchasers, ironically all in the guise of implementing the Vermont Condominium Ownership Act, which, at its heart, is a consumer protection statute. Cf. Am. Condo. Ass’n v. IDC, Inc., 844 A.2d 117, 128…

2Cases cited26 opinions

  1. Gallagher v. LenartIllinois Supreme Court · 2007
  2. Dring v. McDonnell Douglas Corp.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1995
  3. Southland Corp. v. Toronto-Dominion (In Re Southland Corp.)Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1998
  4. America Condominium Association v. IDC, Inc.Supreme Court of Rhode Island · 2004
  5. Bourne v. Northwood Properties, LLC (In Re Northwood Properties, LLC)Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2007

21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API