Change in Owner's Voting Power - A Due Process Violation?
An owner with substantial interest in an office condominium brought action against the board and other owners claiming that changes in voting rules have violated his due process rights. Alberto San, Inc. v. Consejo de Titulares del Condominio San Alberto, 522 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2008). The laws changed from assigning voting power based on percentage of ownership to giving each owner one vote regardless of the owner’s share in the condominium. The district court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; it found that plaintiff’s claim was not among the types of claims the court was allowed to hear. Plaintiff appealed.
Section 1983 of the United States Code allows federal courts to hear claims for deprivation of federal rights by state action. The court of appeals agreed with the district court that plaintiff fail to plead sufficiently that its rights had been violated by state action. The plaintiff showed that state law lead to the violations, but failed to prove the second component of state action—that a state actor was to be blamed. The association's board and the other members did not meet the definition of state actor: they did not have a public function and did not act jointly with the state. Also, the state did not coerce or encourage defendants’ actions.
Lastly, the court of appeals found that the district court erred in awarding attorney’s fees to defendants, because even though plaintiff’s claim was unsuccessful, it was not without foundation.
This site and any information contained herein is intended for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. Seek a competent attorney for advice on any legal matter.
Section 1983 of the United States Code allows federal courts to hear claims for deprivation of federal rights by state action. The court of appeals agreed with the district court that plaintiff fail to plead sufficiently that its rights had been violated by state action. The plaintiff showed that state law lead to the violations, but failed to prove the second component of state action—that a state actor was to be blamed. The association's board and the other members did not meet the definition of state actor: they did not have a public function and did not act jointly with the state. Also, the state did not coerce or encourage defendants’ actions.
Lastly, the court of appeals found that the district court erred in awarding attorney’s fees to defendants, because even though plaintiff’s claim was unsuccessful, it was not without foundation.
This site and any information contained herein is intended for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. Seek a competent attorney for advice on any legal matter.
Posted by Ryan McCabe at 2/3/2009 9:24 PM 
Categories: Constitutional Issues, Homeowners Association, Voting Rights, Attorney's Fees, Board of Directors
Categories: Constitutional Issues, Homeowners Association, Voting Rights, Attorney's Fees, Board of Directors
Comments