## Facts

- Thomas and Elizabeth Weldy owned a unit in the Northbrook of Monroe condominium, governed by a recorded declaration and bylaws.
- The declaration’s use restrictions required that household pets “shall be restrained by leash or other comparable means” and accompanied by an owner at all times.
- The declaration authorized the board to make regulations necessary to carry out the intent of the use restrictions.
- The bylaws authorized the board to adopt and amend rules covering operational “details,” while providing that rules contained in the declaration could be amended only through the declaration’s amendment process.
- The declaration required amendments to be approved by two-thirds of unit owners and mortgagees.
- The board adopted a resolution limiting pet leashes or restraints to a maximum length of twenty feet, describing it as a clarification meant to improve safety and control.
- The Weldys sued to enjoin enforcement, arguing the leash-length limit was a substantive change that effectively amended the declaration without the required owner approval.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the association and board; the Appellate Court reversed; the Supreme Court granted review on the scope of board rulemaking authority.

## Issues

1. Whether a board resolution imposing a twenty-foot maximum leash length materially changes or contradicts the declaration’s pet-restraint provision such that it is an amendment requiring supermajority approval.
2. Whether, under the declaration and bylaws, the board may adopt specific operational rules that implement broadly stated use restrictions.

## Decision

- The Connecticut Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Court and reinstated summary judgment for the association and board.
- The Court held the twenty-foot leash-length rule was a permissible clarification and implementation of the declaration’s existing restraint requirement, not an amendment.
- Because the rule did not materially alter or contradict rights and obligations in the recorded declaration, the formal amendment procedure (two-thirds approval) was not required.

## Legal Principles

- A condominium board may adopt reasonable rules governing operational details when the declaration/bylaws authorize rules necessary to carry out the intent of recorded use restrictions.
- A board rule triggers formal declaration-amendment procedures only if it materially changes substantive rights or obligations created by the declaration or contradicts the declaration’s text.
- A rule may be more specific than a general declaration provision without being an amendment, so long as it remains consistent with the provision and functions as implementation.
- Courts interpret the declaration and bylaws together to distinguish between core recorded restrictions and board-set details for day-to-day governance.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the board’s authority to set a maximum leash length as an implementing rule consistent with the declaration’s general pet-restraint requirement, clarifying that only rules that materially alter or conflict with recorded declaration rights must be adopted through the declaration’s supermajority amendment process.


Weldy v. Northbrook Condo. Ass’n, Inc., 279 Conn. 728, 904 A.2d 188 (2006)