Who is responsible?
We have a situation where a condo homeowner refused to do an Architectural Change form and had a contractor remove a cover from a patio. The homeowner died and the children sold through probate. After the close of escrow, the new homeowner’s handyman discovered that there was damage to the roof when they were fixing the gutters on the unit and brought the damage to the attention of the new homeowner. They in turn brought it to the attention of the board. The new board said it was not their problem and was not going to do anything. Who is responsible to fix the damage and cover the cost which is $1,150?
Ultimately, according to our C, C, and Rs, the homeowner would have been responsible, but we can’t go after a dead person. Without an Architectural Change form, we do not know who the contractor was so we can’t go after them. Is there any obligation for the new condo owner to pay any portion of the damage? How does ARS 33-1247A play into this? Is a board breaching its duty to even suggest to a new homeowner that they should pay for half of the work to get it done?
About Post Author
2 Responses
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Lisam,
This sounds like a similar question asked by another homeowner. The issue is despite the general requirement to maintain the common property, the prior owners attempted a modification without approval to the common property and in doing so damaged the common property. That owner is responsible for the cost of repairing the common property damaged by their actions. This could and should have been applied by the association as a common expense assessment subject to the statutory lien on the property, if it had been discovered by the association prior to the sale of the unit. The real issue for the new homeowner is whether the estate of the previous owner is still open for any reason. If it is, you can file a claim against the estate in small claims court. If the estate is closed, you are stuck with the cost to affect the repair. While you could contest this is court based on the failure to disclose during the sale, based on the facts that you provided in my opinion you would have a very difficult if not impossible case to prevail on. The statute you cited is irrelevant to this issue.
Dennis
Thank you!