expressing doubt whether actions of condominium association constituted “state action”
How later courts described this case
- expressing doubt whether actions of condominium association constituted “state action”
- "[t]o determine whether or not [an] [a]ssociation's disapproval of [the proposed activity] was reasonable it is necessary to isolate the reason or reasons approval was withheld"
- "[T]here is considerable doubt of whether the actions of Association constitute state action so as to bring into play the constitutional guarantees."
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
GARDNER, P. J.
I dissent.
Stripped to its essentials, this is a case in which the other owners of a condominium are attempting to stop the owner of one unit from em *689 barking on a time sharing enterprise. The majority properly conclude that the owners as a group have the authority to regulate reasonably the use and alienation of the units. The majority then conclude that the board’s refusal to approve this transfer was unreasonable as a matter of law. To the contrary, I would find it to be entirely reasonable and would affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The use of a unit on a time sharing basis is inconsistent with the quiet enjoyment of the premises by the other occupants. Time sharing is a remarkable gimmick. P. T. Barnum would have loved it. It ordinarily brings enormous profits to the seller and in this case would bring chaos to the other residents. Here we have only 4 occupants but if this transfer is permitted there is nothing to stop a more greedy occupant of a unit from conveying to 52 or 365 other occupants.
If as an occupant of a condominium I must anticipate that my neighbors are going to change with clocklike regularity I might just as well move into a hotel—and get room service.
Respondent’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied August 26, 1981.