Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
___________________________
Sullivan
No. 2002-689
PHILLIP SCHAEFER & a.
v.
. . .
Page 4
Schae144
(j) buy and sell property when deemed in the best
interests of the Association;
. . .
(n) take such other action as it may deem necessary to
further the purposes of this Declaration or to be in
the best interests of this Association.
Because the decision to close the ski area or any other amenity
may be necessary to insure financial stability or be in the best
interests of the association, it is a decision that is reserved
in Article 7.6 for the association to make, through the board,
and thus within the board's authority.
The plaintiffs argue that, pursuant to the declaration, ECA
lacked authority to close the ski area because it was neither
"necessary to insure ECA's financial stability," nor "in the
best interests of Eastman." This argument is misplaced.
Whether the association's decision was in fact either necessary
to ECA's financial stability or in the best interests of Eastman
is a question of the reasonableness of the association's action.
So long as ECA's action "does not contravene either an express
provision of the declaration or a right reasonably inferable
therefrom, it will be found valid, within the scope of the
board's authority." Beachwood Villas Condo., 448 So. 2d at
1145. The plaintiffs, both in their brief and at oral argument,
argued that the "reasonableness of ECA's decision is not
relevant here because the Board did not act within its
authority, and thus, there was no need for the trial court to
address ECA's reasonableness argument." Because the plaintiffs
only claimed, both here and at the trial court, that the
association lacked authority to act as it did, and did not
allege that the action was unreasonable, these arguments are not
relevant to the question presented to us for review.
Reversed.
BROCK, C.J., and BRODERICK, NADEAU and DALIANIS, JJ.,
concurred.
Page 6
Schae144
Page 7