## Facts

- John and Janie O’Buck bought a condominium unit in Cottonwood Village Condominiums in June 1981; the unit was pre-wired for a central antenna and an antenna-based cable system.
- Television reception in the complex was poor, making an outdoor antenna or cable effectively necessary to watch television.
- Roof antenna availability was important to the O’Bucks because they owned four televisions and often watched different programs simultaneously.
- In 1984, the association faced serious roof leaks; the board attributed leakage in part to poorly mounted antennas and roof foot traffic related to antenna maintenance.
- The association spent about $155,000 to repair the roofs; contractors removed all rooftop antennas during the work.
- Before antennas were reinstalled, the board adopted a rule prohibiting mounting television antennas anywhere on the buildings, citing roof protection and improving appearance/marketability.
- The association offered access to the MultiVisions cable system, offered to pay a $15 hookup fee, and offered compensation for the depreciated value of old antennas; the O’Bucks received $284.20 for damage to their antenna.
- After the rule, the O’Bucks had cable service for one television; connecting additional sets would cost $10 per month per set.

## Issues

1. Whether the association’s board had authority under the declaration, bylaws, and Alaska law to adopt a rule banning building-mounted television antennas.
2. Whether the antenna-ban rule was reasonable in light of its stated objectives and the burden imposed on unit owners.
3. Whether the O’Bucks had an easement or vested right to maintain a roof antenna that the rule unlawfully impaired.

## Decision

- The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed judgment for the association after a bench trial.
- The court held the board had authority to regulate use of common elements, including roofs and exterior walls, and to require actions preserving a uniform exterior appearance.
- The court held the antenna-ban rule was reasonable, given roof-protection concerns, aesthetic/marketability objectives, and the relatively small financial burden on the O’Bucks.
- The court rejected the claimed easement as a bar to the rule, concluding any antenna use was subject to the association’s governance authority over common elements.
- The court left in place the superior court’s award of $8,000 in attorney’s fees to the association.

## Legal Principles

- Condominium association rules governing common elements are enforceable when authorized by the governing documents and when reasonable.
- Reasonableness of an association rule is assessed by weighing the rule’s objectives against the burdens imposed on unit owners and considering available alternatives.
- Associations may impose aesthetic and marketability-based restrictions affecting common elements, even if individual owners disagree, so long as the rule is reasonable and not contrary to public policy or constitutional limits.
- Purchase into a condominium regime entails acceptance of collective regulation; individual preference or inconvenience does not invalidate a reasonable rule.
- An asserted right to use common elements (including claimed easement-like interests) does not defeat a later rule where the governing documents reserve regulatory authority to the association over those common elements.

## Conclusion

The Alaska Supreme Court upheld the condominium association’s building-wide ban on mounted television antennas because the governing documents authorized regulation of common elements and the rule reasonably advanced roof-protection and appearance/marketability objectives without imposing more than a modest burden on the unit owners.


O'Buck v. Cottonwood Village Condominium Ass'n, Inc., 750 P.2d 813 (Alaska 1988)