Life is very short and there’s no time
For fussing and fighting, my friend
I have always thought that it’s a crime
So I will ask you once again
Try to see it my way
Only time will tell if I am right or I am wrong
While you see it your way
There’s a chance that we might fall apart before too long
(We Can Work It Out, The Beatles)
In my career as a community association attorney, I can’t begin to count the number of times I have heard from clients that life in a community association is akin to life in paradise … no muss, no fuss, no bother. Now that I have your attention, let’s talk turkey. Life in a community association is just like life in the rest of the world … while it can be wonderful and rewarding, it can also be challenging to say the least. The distinction is that challenges and disputes that arise in a community association have as their genesis not only ordinary societal issues (including differing attitudes, disagreements and a divided country), in a community association, disputes often arise as a result of non-compliance with the community’s governing documents, covenants and restrictions.
A couple of years ago, I authored a piece entitled “Peace of the Puzzle” which discussed best practices in avoidingconflict in community associations (Common Ground, May/June 2021 issue). But what happens when conflict cannot be avoided and it results in a dispute that needs to be resolved? We will discuss dispute resolution as it applies to community associations in this article.
Communication
Communication by and between the disputing parties is critical to resolving the dispute. Time and time again, I have witnessed parties engaged in a dispute actually stop communicating with one another. A practical question arises as it pertains to this strategy: how in the world will ceasing communication between the parties actually help resolve the conflict? The simple answer is: it won’t. In fact, it will generally make things worse. For clarification, I am not suggesting that parties who are engaged in a dispute where one party is abusing, intimidating or harassing the other (or a situation of such mutual behavior) should attempt to talk it out. I am suggesting (and recommending) that when parties can discuss their dispute professionally and in a civil nature, they should. This may actually lead to resolving the dispute, or may assist in getting to a resolution faster than if the parties were not communicating.
From the perspective of a community association being a party to a dispute with a unit owner (unrelated to the collection of delinquent assessments), I generally recommend that the association (through its Board and/or with a Community Manager) seek to meet with the adverse unit owner either formally or informally to discuss the dispute and try and resolve the matter.
Similarly, a unit owner battling with his or her community association or with another unit owner should strongly consider meeting with representatives of the association or with the other unit owner, as may be applicable, to attempt to resolve their dispute. Communication by and between any of the adverse parties can be worth its weight in gold.
Exhaustion of Internal Remedies
In virtually every community association in every jurisdiction, the governing documents and/or the controlling common interest community statutes will provide that when the association is enforcing its governing documents against a unit owner for a violation, the association must provide notice of the violation to the unit owner, and an opportunity to be heard (due process) on the violation to the unit owner prior to issuing the violation against and/or assessing a fine to the unit owner. (Statutes vary by jurisdiction, but the gist is the same; check with your community association attorney to ensure the required steps are being handled correctly). Following this process correctly would serve to exhaust all of the required internal remedies as it relates to the violation, and, if need be, would permit the association to move forward with further action(s) if the unit owner disputes the violation and relief from the court or some other remedy, such as a form of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), such as mediation or arbitration, is sought to resolve the dispute.
As part of the internal remedy procedure, some states (like New Jersey, where I am licensed to practice) statutorily require that community associations affirmatively offer ADR to unit owners prior to going to court on all, or some, issues. Other states, such as Pennsylvania (where I am also licensed, and primarily practice) statutorily provide for voluntary ADR as part of the internal remedy procedure. The Pennsylvania statutes provide that: (1) All parties must agree to ADR; (2) ADR is not mandatory; any party may seek a private cause of action or other relief; and (3) Costs for ADR (excluding attorneys’ fees) are to be assessed equally against all parties to the dispute.
The common interest community statutes and/or association governing documents in many jurisdictions also permit a unit owner to file a complaint against the association for violations (generally for allegedly failing to enforce the covenants and restrictions) and/or for other disputed issues. In many jurisdictions, the statutes and/or the governing documents also require a unit owner to exhaust internal remedies as may be required prior to filing an agency complaint or taking the association to court on all or some issues. For example, Pennsylvania’s statutes permit a unit owner in good standing to file a complaint with the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General’s Bureau of Consumer Protection for a limited number of issues (meetings, quorums, proxies, voting and association records). However, before a unit owner can file a complaint with the Pennsylvania Attorney General, all existing internal remedies must first run their course, and, if the association’s governing documents provide for internal ADR to first occur, a unit owner can’t file with the Pennsylvania Attorney General until ADR is exhausted and no resolution results, or one-hundred days have passed with no resolution. A unit owner can immediately file a complaint with the Pennsylvania Attorney General if the governing documents do not contain ADR provisions or if the governing documents provide for ADR but the association refuses to agree to engage in ADR with the unit owner.
It is therefore strongly recommended that parties determine if their governing documents and/or respective jurisdiction’s statutes require ADR or some other dispute resolution mechanism to occur prior to engaging in other dispute resolution efforts or litigation. A final note: the required internal remedies that we have discussed invariably may lead to – you guessed it – some form of communication occurring between the parties that are engaged in the dispute … which, as we know, is better than no communication.
Actively Working to Resolve the Dispute Outside of Court
If communication and the exhaustion of internal remedies do not resolve the dispute, it’s time to seek other options. I generally recommend exploring if a formal or informal meeting with/between the party/parties to try and resolve the dispute is possible (even if attempted in the initial communication phase) – after all, it can’t hurt to try. The best case scenario is that the dispute gets resolved.
If a formal or informal meeting doesn’t work, or simply doesn’t happen, then the parties should explore formal Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) using a third party for a non-binding or binding mediation and/or arbitration based on the agreement of the parties (of course this need not be utilized if the parties were required to engage in ADR in exhausting the administrative remedies and it was not successful. The parties can attempt a second ADR session if they so choose at this point, which may or may not be successful). ADR is a popular and often much less expensive choice for associations who seek to resolve disputes without the need for full-blown litigation in court.
The two most popular types of ADR utilized by associations are mediation and arbitration. Mediation is generally heard by a sole mediator and is more of a “summary” proceeding where the parties and the attorneys submit information (usually mediation memoranda) to the Mediator (ahead of time and/or at the mediation) and discuss their cases with the mediator and/or with the mediator and one another without the need for evidence/actual testimony to be introduced/taken at the mediation). The mediator issues a recommendation for resolution at the conclusion of a non-binding mediation that the parties may choose to accept or turn down, or in the situation of a binding mediation, the mediator issues a mediation order which the parties agreed to abide by (sometimes the mediation order gets filed with the court and a judge enters an order, unless the mediation proceeding and/or the result is to remain confidential).
Arbitration is generally a more formal and technical proceeding that can be performed by a sole arbitrator or a panel of arbitrators. Arbitration memoranda are typically submitted by the attorneys prior to the proceeding, testimony is taken and evidence is introduced at the proceeding. The arbitrator or arbitration panel issues a recommendation for resolution at the conclusion of a non-binding arbitration that the parties may choose to accept or turn down, or in a binding arbitration, the arbitrator or arbitration panel issues a binding arbitration order which the parties agreed to abide by (sometimes the arbitration order gets filed with the court and a judge enters an order, unless the mediation proceeding and/or the result is to remain confidential).
I am typically a bigger fan of a non-binding mediation session over a binding ADR session, whether it is a binding mediation or arbitration, except in rare situations where a binding, final outcome is the best available option for the particular dispute. Being a non-binding session allows the parties to attempt to formally resolve the dispute with the assistance of a mediator who is a third party with no vested interest in the outcome (aside from his/or her fee). I have been involved in complex, multi-party litigation where multiple mediation sessions were required to resolve a dispute with finality, but even three, four or five mediation sessions is vastly cheaper and more efficient than participating in a four to six week trial which would be subject to appeal.
The Last Straw: Going to Court
Sometimes, despite our best intentions and attempts at resolving a dispute outside of court – we end up in court – because we have to. While cases often settle on the courthouse steps and/or during the trial itself, cases need to be prepared to go the distance, which is time-consuming and expensive for the litigants. A few thoughts about going to court are as follows:
When to go to court. This seems obvious, but sometimes it isn’t. Court is not just the “last resort” option when all else fails. Parties can actually spin their wheels for a long time attempting to resolve a dispute, where one party is purposefully leading the other party down the primrose path. In this situation, going to court sooner, rather than later, may be more beneficial and actually end up being more cost effective.
Focusing on What’s Important and Picking our Battles. I often tell clients, don’t sweat the small stuff, sweat the big stuff. In other words, focus on what’s important and pick your battles when identifying your litigation strategy – look at what the desired end result, and work to achieve that instead of getting lost in the weeds battling over minutiae.
Cost-Benefit Analysis. Every party in litigation should engage in a cost-benefit analysis as it relates to the desired outcome and the cost to get there. If the cost exceeds the desired outcome, then settlement of the dispute in lieu of trial is likely the best option.
Risk-Benefit Analysis. If the risk of losing at trial is greater than the potential benefit of going to trial, then settlement of the dispute in lieu of trial is likely the best option.
Impact on the Association, Board and Members/Owners. Litigation is expensive, time-consuming and can be emotionally exhausting. The association will need to pay its counsel to go to court and the Board and any impacted members/owners will need to deal with the case from inception through trial – many times this causes Board members to resign and members/owners sometimes move out of communities after being involved in protracted litigation.
After the suit – now what? To the victor go the spoils, or so they say. But is this really true in an association setting where it is association vs. unit owner? While there is a formal “winner” at the end of the litigation, the parties (Board members on behalf of the association and the unit owner) must still live next to one another as neighbors and attempt to coexist amicably. This is tough following a drawn-out court case, but the parties should do their best to put the past behind them and forge a new path moving forward. This is obviously much easier said than done, as human nature and behavior often get in the way. Sometimes the greatest goal following litigation for some parties is that they won’t end up in court again.
Parting Thoughts on Conflict Resolution
I am not trying to sound like a self-help guru, but my advice to association residents would be to keep an open mind, act in good faith and be neighborly – this may go a long way when a dispute arises and a resolution is required. As the Beatles taught us: we can work it out.
– Edward Hoffman, Jr., Esq., CCAL
* Content in this Blog post is also contained in an abbreviated/edited article by Edward Hoffman, Jr., Esq., CCAL, published in the November/December 2023 issue of CAI’s Common Ground magazine, entitled “We Can Work It Out”.