## Facts

- A developer recorded a condominium declaration under the Common Interest Ownership Act (CIOA), creating initial units and reserving special declarant rights, including development rights to add many more units.
- The reserved declarant rights were transferred through successive conveyances, ultimately to Local Land Development, LLC as successor declarant.
- Local sought and obtained municipal approvals to build additional condominium units and hired a contractor to perform site preparation on the undeveloped portion of the project.
- Government agencies halted work for environmental and zoning violations; the unit-owners’ association, as title holder, was notified it could be liable for those violations.
- The declaration contained a “special limitation” provision (§ 8.9) that limited the time and conditions under which special declarant rights could be exercised, including a clause tying exercisability to the declarant being “obligated under any warranty or obligation,” owning units, holding a security interest in units, or a stated outer time limit—“whichever is sooner.”
- The association sued to quiet title and sought damages and injunctive relief, asserting Local’s special declarant rights had expired.
- The trial court denied injunctive relief and granted summary judgment for defendants, reasoning that statutory obligations under CIOA (including taxes and expenses for the reserved-development property) satisfied the § 8.9 “obligation” condition and thus preserved Local’s rights.

## Issues

1. Whether “obligation” in the declaration’s limitation on special declarant rights includes only obligations owed to unit owners, or also includes statutory or third-party obligations (e.g., taxes and expenses under CIOA).
2. Whether, under the declaration’s limiting language, Local’s special declarant and development rights had expired when it undertook the challenged development activities.
3. Whether summary judgment for the defendants was proper where it rested on the conclusion that Local still held valid special declarant rights.

## Decision

- The Connecticut Supreme Court held that “obligation” in § 8.9 was ambiguous as to the type of obligation required to extend special declarant rights.
- The Court construed the ambiguity against the drafter of the declaration and in favor of the unit owners/association, limiting “obligation” to obligations owed to unit owners.
- Because Local did not have qualifying obligations to unit owners and did not satisfy other continuation conditions (ownership of units or security interests), the Court concluded Local’s special declarant rights had expired under § 8.9.
- The Court reversed in part the trial court’s judgment and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the expiration of Local’s special declarant rights.

## Legal Principles

- Condominium declarations are interpreted using ordinary principles of contract interpretation.
- When a declaration drafted by a developer is reasonably susceptible to more than one meaning, ambiguities affecting the allocation of rights between declarant and unit owners are construed against the drafter.
- A declaration provision extending special declarant rights based on the declarant being “obligated under any warranty or obligation” can be construed to mean obligations owed to unit owners, not general statutory duties or third-party obligations such as paying taxes or property-related expenses.
- Limiting clauses for special declarant rights are given effect to prevent indefinite continuation of developer control where the stated continuation conditions are not met.

## Conclusion

The court narrowly construed an ambiguous declaration clause limiting special declarant rights, holding that only obligations owed to unit owners could extend those rights; because the successor declarant lacked such obligations and met no other continuation condition, its development rights had expired, requiring reversal of summary judgment premised on the contrary interpretation.


Cantonbury Heights Condominium Ass'n, Inc. v. Local Land Dev., LLC, 273 Conn. 724, 873 A.2d 898 (Conn. 2005)