Page 11 - CooperatorNews Chicagoland Summer 2021

CHICAGO.COOPERATORNEWS.COM COOPERATORNEWS CHICAGOLAND — SUMMER 2021 11 Time for a new Time for a new CBU? CBU? Mailbox Installations and Repairs Mailbox Installations and Repairs Mailbox Fast LLC Mailbox Fast LLC www.MailboxFast.com www.MailboxFast.com Wheaton, IL Wheaton, IL 630-215-7343 630-215-7343 Before Before Make Your Life Easier with Make Your Life Easier with Q&A continued from page 7 Disclaimer: Th e answers provided in this Q&A column are of a general nature and cannot substitute for professional advice regarding your specifi c circumstances. Always seek the advice of competent legal counsel or other qualifi ed profes- sionals with any questions you may have regard- ing technical or legal issues. appear to be skating on thin ice. Attempt- ing to regulate the type of clothing worn by owners, residents, or visitors to the as- sociation is diffi cult to do without running afoul of any number of federal and state laws such as anti-discrimination statutes. What amounts to proper attire can be a very subjective matter and it would likely be extremely diffi cult for the association to survive scrutiny for both reasonableness and uniformity of enforcement. If the lack of clothing (not wearing his shirt) was the cause of the warning from the manage- ment company, then it is possible that the rule could be found to be reasonable, but only if it is draft ed in such a way as to be unambiguous and is limited to that con- duct which would reasonably be found by a court to be off ensive and in the best in- terests of the association to restrict—such as nudity in common areas.” Balcony Alteration Q A homeowner in a condo asks the board to allow the altera- tion of the balcony enclosure to a taller height. Th e board and manage- ment company agree and the alteration takes place. Twenty-fi ve years later, a new manager says that was improper and the balcony must go back to original stan- dards. Is there a statute of limitations on this balcony? —Must Th is Change Be Made? A Says David Savitt, an at- torney with Kovitz Shifrin Nesbit, which has offi ces throughout Illinois, “Since the declaration is essentially a contract between the owner and the association, the applicable statute of limitations would be 10 years in accor- dance with 735 ILCS 5/13-206, which gov- erns claims brought pursuant to a breach of contract theory. To that end, the 10- year statute of limitations period began to ‘run’ on the date that the board provided its approval to the homeowner. As such, the board would likely be legally barred by the statute of limitations from proceeding with a claim against the homeowner de- signed to compel him or her to return the balcony to its original state. Note, though, this is a defense that would have to be raised by the owner. “Having said that, putting the 10-year statute of limitations period aside, even if the board was able to initiate a lawsuit against the homeowner, the owner would also have a number of legal defenses that could be raised in response to such a law- suit. One defense that could be raised by the homeowner would be the Doctrine of Laches. Essentially, the Doctrine of Laches is an equitable principle which provides that a party will not be able to enforce a le- gal right against another party if they have failed to assert that right aft er a long delay and such delay has negatively aff ected the other party. Applying that concept to the matter at hand, this would mean that even if the board has a legal basis to demand that the balcony enclosure be returned to its original state, the homeowner could claim that because twenty-fi ve years have passed without the board asserting its rights, the board has now lost its abil- ity to enforce such a restriction against the homeowner. Along that same vein, a strong argument could also be made by the homeowner that when the board ap- proved the requested alteration, it waived any right that it now has to mandate that the balcony be returned to its original state, regardless of whether the alteration is, in fact, ‘improper.’ “Further, Illinois law also protects in- dividuals who claim to have relied to their detriment upon the words or actions of a party with whom they have contracted under a theory called Promissory Estop- pel. In this case, the homeowner could argue that he or she relied to his/her det- riment by proceeding with the approved enclosure at his/her fi nancial expense. Given that the homeowner would most certainly be disadvantaged if he or she were required to cause the balcony to be returned to its original state, this would appear to be precisely the type of scenario that Promissory Estoppel was created to prevent.” n Do you have an issue with your board? Are you wondering how to solve a dispute with a neighbor? Can’t fi nd informa- tion you need about a building’s fi nances? Our attorney advi- sors have the answers to all of your legal questions. Write to CooperatorNews Chicagoland and we’ll publish your ques- tion, along with a response from one of our attorney advisors. Questions may be edited for taste, length and clarity. Send your questions to: darcey@cooperatornews.com. Q&A