## Facts

- Sun Mountain Condominiums was a condominium project in Ketchum, Idaho, planned as Phase I with three buildings, each containing four units (12 units total).
- The original developer constructed only one building and sold the first four units to individual purchasers.
- Those four purchasers became members of the Sun Mountain Condominium Homeowners Association (the association), the entity responsible for condominium governance.
- The condominium declaration stated: “Every Owner shall be entitled and required to be a member of the association. No person or entity other than an Owner may be a member of the Association.”
- The declaration described condominium ownership as fee simple title to a separate interest in an individual unit plus an undivided interest in the common areas as tenants in common with other unit owners.
- The declaration contemplated that all three buildings in Phase I would be built and offered for sale at the same time, but that did not occur.
- The original developer did not attempt to manage or control the association, did not vote in association matters, and did not pay association assessments; the first four unit owners paid the assessments that were levied.
- Investors Limited of Sun Valley (Investors) later acquired the remaining, unimproved, unsold portion of the project and became the second developer.
- After acquiring the project, Investors submitted amended plans to the city showing three additional buildings instead of the two remaining buildings contemplated in the original Phase I plan.
- The association opposed Investors’ amended plan, asserting it would reduce each existing unit owner’s fractional share of the common area.
- To overcome the association’s opposition, Investors attempted to assert voting control in the association based on its claimed ownership of eight unbuilt units associated with the original Phase I plan.
- The association rejected Investors’ claim to membership and voting rights and excluded Investors from participation in association affairs.
- Investors filed suit seeking a declaration that it was an “Owner” under the declaration and therefore entitled to membership and voting rights in the association.
- Idaho condominium statutes did not expressly resolve whether a developer holding title to land for unbuilt units qualifies as an association member with voting rights.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Investors, declaring that Investors had voting rights; the association appealed to the Idaho Court of Appeals.

## Issues

1. Whether a developer that owns the unimproved, unsold portion of a condominium project (corresponding to unbuilt units) is an “Owner” entitled to membership and voting rights in the condominium homeowners association under the declaration and Idaho law.

## Decision

- The Idaho Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s summary judgment for Investors.
- The court held that Investors, as owner of the unimproved and unsold portion of the project tied to unbuilt units, was not an “Owner” for association membership and voting purposes under the condominium declaration.
- The case was returned to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with the appellate decision.

## Legal Principles

- A condominium declaration limiting association membership to “Owners” is interpreted in light of how the declaration defines condominium ownership: ownership of an individual condominium unit together with an undivided interest in the common elements.
- A developer’s ownership of undeveloped project land, without completed units (and the recorded unit ownership interests described by the declaration), does not by itself make the developer an “Owner” entitled to association membership or votes.
- Where condominium statutes do not grant developers voting rights based solely on unbuilt units, the declaration’s text and the nature of condominium unit ownership control the membership and voting analysis.
- Association voting rights are tied to unit ownership interests that carry defined common-element shares and assessment obligations; counting “unbuilt” units as voting interests can improperly dilute existing unit owners’ governance rights.
- Summary judgment based on an incorrect interpretation of the condominium declaration is reversible error when the declaration, read as a whole, does not support the claimed ownership status.

## Conclusion

In Investors Limited v. Sun Mountain Condominium, the Idaho Court of Appeals reversed a summary judgment that had granted a successor developer voting rights in a condominium association, holding that ownership of the unimproved, unsold portion of the project tied to unbuilt units did not make the developer an “Owner” under the declaration and therefore did not confer association membership or voting power.


Investors Limited v. Sun Mountain Condominium, 683 P.2d 891 (1984)