McGrath, PCAM of Benjamin Cobrin & Company, Agents tesed on behalf of the associaon as its Managing Agent as to the reasonableness of the aorneys’ fees, given the protracted nature of the ligaon and the hourly rates charged by the associaon’s aorneys. The Court relied on Mr. McGrath’s thirty- ve (35) years of experience in property management in its analysis of the reasonableness of the aorneys’ fees sought and requested by the associaon, and disagreed with Mr. Robinson’s contenon that an expert witness was required to tesfy for the associaon on the issue of aorneys’ fees.
Thereaer, Mr. Robinson led an appeal of the trial court verdict to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. On December 29, 2015, the Commonwealth Court issued a twenty-three (23) page Opinion upholding the trial court verdict in favor of the associaon.
In upholding the trial court’s verdict, the Commonwealth Court noted that Secon 3302(a)(4) of the Pennsylvania Uniform Condominium Act (the “Act”) permits condominium associaons to “[i]nstute, defend or intervene in ligaon…in its own name on behalf of itself…on maers aecng the condominium,” and Secon 3315 of the Act gives the associaon the authority to recover “reasonable costs and expenses of the associaon, including legal fees, incurred in connecon with collecon of any sums due the associaon by the unit owner.” Moreover, the Court noted that Secon 3315(f) of the Act states, “[a] judgment or decree in any acon or suit brought under this secon shall include costs and reasonable aorney’s fees for the prevailing party.” The Commonwealth Court noted that in analyzing an award of aorneys’ fees, the trial court’s discreon will not be interfered with except for palpable error, given that the trial court has the opportunity to judge and consider numerous factors, including but not limited to, the exact amount of labor, skill and responsibility involved, the rate of professional compensaon, the character of the services rendered, the diculty of the problems involved, the importance of the ligaon, and the degree of responsibility incurred.
The Commonwealth Court proceeded to analyze the disparity between the amount of the Appellant’s delinquent balance for assessments, and the amount of aorneys’ fees incurred by the associaon to collect same, nong the Court’s previous holding in Mountain View v. Bomersbach, 734 A.2d 468 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1999), in which the Court upheld an award of aorneys’ fees in the amount of $46,548.64 to collect a delinquent assessments balance of $1,200.00. Here, the Commonwealth Court found it persuasive that, when this ligaon began in February 2011, the associaon demanded only $939.83, which represented all of the outstanding amounts that the Appellant owed, including the associaon’s collecon costs. The Commonwealth Court, in upholding the award of the enrety of the associaon’s aorneys’ fees, specically noted that “the same amount of legal work is required to collect $1,000.00 or $50,000.00.”
Accordingly, the Commonwealth Court reiterated the holding in Mountain View, stang that a condominium associaon is not required to compromise but may “stand on principle …to uphold the law” and “its rights under the Declaraon and the decisional law, which entles it to have its “aorneys’ fees be covered” when it does so. The Commonwealth Court elaborated that, “to require the other members of the associaon to pay the
aorneys’ fees associated with recovering the monthly condo fees and special assessments Robinson has a legal obligaon to pay is contrary to the language of Secon 3315(f), which requires the inclusion of ‘costs and reasonable aorney’s fees for the prevailing party’ on a judgment.”
The Commonwealth Court’s Opinion and the ruling in this case is signicant to associaons throughout the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for several reasons. First, the case arose out of Philadelphia County, a jurisdicon, bench and bar that is quite familiar with planned community law and issues. Second, the trial court verdict was entered by a judge, not a jury. Further, both the Court of Common Pleas and the Commonwealth Court pointed to the acons, conduct and combaveness of the unit owner/defendant when determining the reasonableness of the associaon’s acons and its aorneys’ fees. Moreover, the Commonwealth Court makes it clear in its ruling that the relaonship or disparity between the underlying debt and the aorneys’ fees and costs incurred by the associaon is not a factor when determining the reasonableness of aorneys’ fees. Lastly, this is the rst appellate level case in Pennsylvania since Mountain View in 1999 to squarely address the important issue of awarding aorneys’ fees to associaons in collecon acons.
For a copy of the full Commonwealth Court Opinion, go to 2015 WL 9467327 or Arches Condominium Ass’n v. Robinson, ---A.3d---(2015).
ABOUT THE AUTHOR Sco Reidenbach, Esq. is the founding principal of Reidenbach & Associates, LLC and concentrates his pracce in the areas of condominium and community associaon law, construcon ligaon, real estate, and related areas real estate including transacons, ligaon, landlord and tenant, and leasing. He can be reached via e-mail at: sco@
reidenbachlaw.com.
| 23
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40