# America v. Bd. of Dir. of Sunspray Condo. Ass'n > Superior Court of Maine ยท November 15, 2011 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10809712 ## Case - **Court:** Superior Court of Maine - **Decided:** November 15, 2011 - **Precedential status:** Unpublished - **Opinion:** Opinion - **Judges:** G. Arthur Brennan - **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10809712 ## Opinion text STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION YORK, ss. DOCKET NO. CV-11-2~1 C7/tB- '/01('- tl/t5j")-o 11 VITORINO AMERICA, Individually And derivatively on behalf of SUNSPRAY CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff v. ORDER BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF SUNSPRAY CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, et al., Defendants Pending is Mr. America's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. Following hearing the Motion is Denied. This is a dispute between the Board of Directors of the Sunspray Condominium Association and a unit owner individually and derivatively on behalf of the association. The origins of the dispute involve whether the board is effectively enforcing a no smoking on the premise regulation. The immediate issue before the court has to do with a recent election for the association's board. Specifically, Mr. America alleges that certain irregularities in the election procedure fatally taint the recent election of board members. These irregularities are set out in detail in his pleadings. He requests that the court declare the most recent election void and order a prompt, new election. The Board challenges Mr. America's standing to bring this action; the merits of the claim and the sufficiency of the showing for immediate injunctive relief. In order to obtain preliminary injunctive relief, Mr. America must satisfy the familiar Ingraham criteria: 1) a likelihood of success on the merits; 2) irreparable injury; 3) injury which will exceed any damage caused to the defendant as a result of an injunctive order; and 4) no adverse consequence to a public interest. Ingraham v. University of Maine at Orono, 441 A.2d 691 (Me. 1982). The challenged election occurred on September 3, 2011. The by-laws require the next election to be held in July, 2012. Mr. America claims he will suffer irreparable injury because the Board, if elected through an invalid procedure, lacks legitimate authority to act on behalf of the Association. However, given the brief period until the next election, the claimed illegitimacy will not likely impair the Board's ability to function effectively. Further, the Board has a strong incentive to act prudently, since each unit owner will be proportionately responsible for contractual obligations created. In sum, Mr. America has failed to establish that he will be irreparably injured absent injunctive relief. Further, as the pleadings make plain, there will be rather complex legal issues to sort out as the case proceeds. At this preliminary stage, the arguments on the merits appear to be in equipoise. For these reasons, the Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order is Denied. Further proceedings may be before any judge. Dated: November 15, 2011 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF: NEAL PRATT JONATHAN G MERMIN PRETI FLAHERTY BELIVEAU PACHIOS & HALEY PO BOX 9546 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT: PORTLAND ME 04112-9546 GERALDINE G SANCHEZ PIERCE ATWOOD LLP MERRILL 1 S WHARF 254 COMMERCIAL STREET PORTLAND ME 04101-4664 2 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10809712. Public record. Not legal advice.