Litigation

Subscribe to Litigation
Public Pool

Wis. Stat. 895.52 and the related cases

The starting point for recreational immunity is to understand that the purpose of the law is to induce property owners to open their land for recreational use. Therefore, recreational users are to bear the risk of the recreational activity. Held v. Ackerville Snow Club, 2007 WI App 43, 300 Wis. 2d 498, 730 N.W.2d 428, 06-0914. This immunity protection applies to condominiums and homeowner associations, even though for condominiums the association is not the owner of the land, because the association is an occupant of the land.  Bethke v. Lauderdale of LaCrosse, Inc. 2000 WI App 107, 235 Wis. 2d 103, 612 N.W.2d 332, 99-1897.  Continue Reading Recreational Immunity in Wisconsin – What You Need to Know

What you need to know:

Where the governing documents or the statute place the authority to interpret the governing documents with the board, the board’s interpretation will be binding unless unreasonable. However, if a director has a conflict of interest, the director can’t be part of the decision making process or the vote and must recuse herself/himself.Continue Reading Conflicts of Interest and The Boards Power to Interpret the Governing Documents

Recently, Attorney Naomie Kweyu Husch Blackwell LLP, scored a huge bench trial win in a southeastern Wisconsin circuit court on a foreclosure and money judgment action.

Summary

If you want the best chance of collecting outstanding assessments, late fees, interest and attorney fees, you need to be organized, have a collection policy and follow your documents. Doing so can make a big difference to your association, as one of our clients recently learned – read more below:Continue Reading Association Successfully Recovers ALL Attorney’s Fees From Unit Owners Who Refused to Pay Attorney Fees

This is too Much

Facts

Montana Developer of three condominium-hotels at Big Sky Ski Resort sold units subject to Declarations that required “all unit owners to use [Developer], or an agent designated by [Developer], as their exclusive rental agents,” when renting out their condominiums.  The Declarations also provided that “Unit owners may decline to renew the rental management contract with [Developer] after three years, but only if 75% of unit owners vote to end the contract with [Developer].”  Of course, Developer also owned all of the commercial units, which constituted 22% of the voting units, and several residential units, practically making it impossible for 75% of the unit owners to do anything that the Developer didn’t want.Continue Reading Claims for When Developers Have TOO Much Control of Association