## Facts

- A lakeside condominium community in Kidder Township, Pennsylvania, was governed by a recorded declaration adopted under Pennsylvania’s Uniform Condominium Act.
- Ronald J. Cappuccio and Sondra Lippi‑Cappuccio bought a unit in 1989; their deed incorporated the recorded declaration.
- The declaration barred unit owners (except the declarant in sales/leasing) from placing any outdoor-visible sign on a unit or common elements without prior written approval from the executive board.
- After local property values declined, the owners placed two “For Sale by Owner” signs in their windows, visible from outside.
- The association demanded removal as a covenant violation; the owners refused, and the association sued in equity to compel removal.
- Before trial, the owners leased the unit and removed the signs; the association offered to withdraw the case if the owners agreed not to post similar signs in the future, but they refused.

## Issues

1. Whether the dispute was moot after the signs were removed, or whether it fit an exception allowing review.
2. Whether judicial enforcement of the declaration’s sign restriction constituted “state action” triggering First Amendment scrutiny.
3. Whether a condominium association becomes a state actor because it is formed under, and regulated by, state condominium statutes or because it functions like a municipality or company town.

## Decision

- The Superior Court treated the controversy as technically moot but reviewed it under the “capable of repetition yet likely to evade review” exception.
- The court reversed the trial court’s order that had barred enforcement of the sign restriction.
- The court held that enforcing the condominium declaration’s sign limitation did not involve state action and therefore did not violate the First Amendment.

## Legal Principles

- Constitutional free-speech limits apply to private conduct only when the challenged conduct is fairly attributable to the state (state action).
- Judicial enforcement of private covenants does not, by itself, convert private governance into state action; Shelley-type treatment is confined to exceptional circumstances.
- Creation under a state statutory framework and exposure to state regulation do not alone transform a private association into a state actor.
- A private residential association is not treated as a municipality or “company town” absent assumption of broad governmental powers; ordinary property management and covenant enforcement remain private action.
- Recorded condominium restrictions incorporated into a deed are enforceable as private covenants against purchasers who take title subject to them.

## Conclusion

The court allowed review despite mootness and held that a condominium association’s enforcement of a recorded, content-neutral sign restriction is private covenant enforcement rather than state action, so the First Amendment does not bar the association from enforcing the restriction against unit owners.


Midlake on Big Boulder Lake Condominium Ass’n v. Cappuccio, 673 A.2d 340 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1996)