## Facts

- Les Chateau condominium unit owners, led by Mary Stuewe and others (plaintiffs), sued James and Phyllis Lauletta (defendants) and Bern Builders, Inc. (Bern) (the developer) to invalidate the Laulettas’ claimed exclusive right to a parking space located in the condominium’s common elements.
- In October 1972, the Laulettas agreed to buy a unit from Bern and were promised two parking spaces inside the garage.
- It was later discovered that two garage spaces were not available.
- Bern then designated a new parking space for the Laulettas in a common area outside the garage and in front of the building—an area not previously designated as a separate parking space on the property survey.
- Bern told the Laulettas that the condominium declaration would be amended to provide for the new space.
- At closing, Bern’s president executed a 99-year lease for the outdoor space to the Laulettas, with a covenant to record an easement.
- At that time, Bern and the Laulettas collectively controlled 15 of the condominium’s 19 units.
- The condominium declaration required unanimous owner approval before common elements could be diminished and before amending the declaration provision establishing owners’ undivided interests in the common elements.
- A separate declaration provision dealing with the parking area allowed amendment with approval of three-fourths of the ownership, but only with proper notice to all owners.
- No amendment satisfying either provision was adopted, and no easement was recorded.
- After the condominium association later assumed management, it offered the Laulettas a different parking space at the rear of the building; the Laulettas refused and continued to claim the front space.
- After a bench trial on the count attacking the lease/easement (Count III), the trial court entered judgment for the Laulettas, reasoning that it would be unfair to deprive them of the parking they had contracted for under the developer’s management.
- The unit-owner plaintiffs appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a condominium developer could validly grant an exclusive 99-year lease and promised easement over part of the common elements for a parking space without a declaration amendment approved and noticed as required by the declaration.
2. Whether equitable fairness to the Laulettas could support enforcement of the lease/easement arrangement against other unit owners when the declaration’s amendment requirements were not met and the easement was never recorded.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the judgment for the Laulettas on Count III and remanded.
- The lease/easement arrangement was invalid because the parking area remained part of the common elements and no declaration amendment was properly adopted under the applicable voting and notice requirements.
- The developer’s and purchasers’ control of a large block of units did not excuse noncompliance with the declaration’s procedures.
- The trial court’s fairness rationale could not sustain a transaction that conflicted with other unit owners’ legal rights in the common elements; equity cannot override those rights.

## Legal Principles

- Common elements may not be reduced, reallocated, or made subject to exclusive private rights except through an amendment adopted in the manner required by the condominium declaration (including any vote threshold and notice conditions).
- A developer’s control of the project during early operations does not permit it to bypass the declaration’s amendment procedures when attempting to grant exclusive rights in common elements.
- An unrecorded promised easement and a long-term lease cannot create enforceable exclusive rights in common elements where the declaration was never validly amended to authorize the change.
- Equity follows the law and cannot be used to defeat other unit owners’ legal interests in common elements created by recorded condominium instruments.

## Conclusion

Stuewe v. Lauletta held that the developer’s attempt to give the Laulettas an exclusive front parking space through a 99-year lease and an unrecorded easement promise failed because the declaration was never amended as required to diminish or specially assign common elements; the appellate court therefore reversed the trial court’s judgment for the Laulettas and remanded, rejecting the view that fairness to the purchasers could validate a legally defective transfer of common-element rights.


Stuewe v. Lauletta, 418 N.E.2d 138 (1981)