Cedar 28 Condominium Association Case

HOUSTON GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY; Inez Grant; Morehouse Parish School Board; Horace Mann Insurance Company and Lloyd Gray, Defendants-Appellants-Appellees.

This is a formal complaint submitted to BHP/DCA against Frank Pinelli, Quantum Developers LLC (Developer) Condominium Association: Cedar Woods Condominium Association (Board) and Jim Polos, Midlantic Property Management.

Owners Ass'n v. Pelzer, 292 S.C. 343, 347, 356 S.E.2d 411, 414 (Ct.App.1987). The business judgment rule only applies to intra vires acts, not ultra vires ones. Kuznik, 342 S.C. at 605, 538 S.E.2d at 28. A homeowners association is bound to follow its covenants and bylaws and cannot defend something that violates those documents on the basis that is a reasonable alternative. Seabrook Island Prop. Owners Ass'n, 292 S.C. at 348, 356 S.E.2d at

Kevin Hirzel of CMDA recently scored an important victory for Michigan condominium associations in Cove Creek Condominium Association v Vistal Land & Home Development, L.L.C., et al., Oakland County Circuit Court Case No. 16-155706-CH (Order Granting Summary Disposition, Dated February 10, 2017). The Oakland County Circuit Court held that the 2016 amendment to MCL 559.167 does not re-create “need not be built” units on common element land that is owned by the co-owners. The ruling will have an impact on any incomplete condominium projects that contain “need not be built” units and also meet one of the following two (2) requirements:

Grocery, Inc. was not aware that Company A had delegated Company B to continue the renovation. Grocery, Inc. ascertains the occurrence of this transaction after monitoring the quality of workmanship. However, Grocery, Inc. dismay, caused the store filed a petition for an injunction

The insureds, who live in a separate house on the same property, refute all of the plaintiffs’ allegations with the exception of their concession that a portion of the siding is missing from one of the exterior walls. They explained that during the renovation of the house, which was completed approximately one year before the plaintiffs took possession, they had a window removed from

Background: Based on the given complaint, on the 28th of March in 2014 the Plaintiff, Linda D. Daugherty suffered an injury on the property of Rauleigh J. Ringer at 814 N. Liberty Street, Alexandria, IN. She is claiming her injury was a result of negligence spawning from the actions, or lack thereof, by Mr. Ringer and Casual Lifestyles Realty, Inc., in which the connection of these three parties has not been clarified with certainty within the claim. The Defendants, by counsel, Mark Maynard, and, pursuant to Rule 12(E) of the Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure, moved for a more definite statement of the Plaintiff’s Complaint. Mark Maynard argues if said Plaintiff could amend her complaint that is supposedly so vague and ambiguous, the newfound clarity would help the defense frame a response to said Plaintiff’s claim. No other information could be

Identify any person not already named as a party to this lawsuit whom you contend caused or contributed to the occurrence complained of, including any architect, engineer, designer, contractor, subcontractor or others.

(2) Other defendant: Other defendants might be Leanne and also the contractor that is responsible for the renovation.

This case involves an investigation of the factors that affect the sale price of Oceanside condominium units. It represents an extension of an analysis of the same data by Herman Kelting (1979). Although condo sale prices have increased dramatically over the past 20 years, the relationship between these factors and sale price remain about the same. Consequently, the data provide valuable insight into today’s condominium sales market.

“The considerations of practicality and principle discussed … above appear to support the respondents ' case, namely that a bribe or secret commission accepted by an agent is held on trust for his principal. The position is perhaps rather less clear when one examines the decided cases … However, to put it at its lowest, the authorities do not preclude us adopting the respondents ' case in that they do not represent a clear and consistent line of authority to the contrary effect. Indeed, we consider that, taken as a whole, the authorities favour the respondents ' case.” (per Lord Neuberger in FHR European Ventures LLP and others v Cedar Capital Partners LLC [2014] UKSC 45 at [46].

McClain, P. J. A., Sheehan, B. F., & Butler, L. L. (1998). Substantive rights retained by

CMR, originally Mike’s Cabinets, is an architectural millwork business that competes in two different market segments: commercial and residential. In order to effectively compete in both markets, the nature of CMR’s business varies slightly between them.

Similarly, “2002 Housing 21, L.L.C. Vs Atlantic Home Builders Company Case” enhances the notion of legal identity of the company, where investors identities were termed irrelevant in suit where L.L.C, stood as a distinct legal entity (Miller, 2002, p.20).