Bourne v. Northwood Properties, No. 07-1146. This is a Chapter 11 bankruptcy case involving codos. To many lawyers, condo law touches their hearts deeply, because it is one of the only injustices that remotely impacts them. Anyway, this case holds that Massachusetts General Laws chapter 183A, section 5(b)(1) (an a condominium owner constructively consents to the addition of further units “if the master deed at the time of the recording of the unit deed . . . made possible an accurate determination of the alteration of each unit's undivided interest that would result therefrom."). Taking an Eerie guess, the First holds that in this case Northwood successfully extended its development rights because the objecting condo-owners (that were also creditors) knew that the master deed provided for additional units. The First rejects the idea that there must be an exact way to calculate what the new interests are, because that, would run counter to the legislature’s intent. The court finishes by explaining the plight of the staving refugees developers by saying “Further, in practice, the district court's reading would tie the hands of developers, making it impossible for them to respond to changing market conditions. This would seriously jeopardize developers' ability to secure financing to complete projects. This in turn could have an adverse impact on present owners of units.”
If you don’t live in a condo, you are not a real American. The material below the fold is for real Americans only. (Details on this condo complex can be found here. Aerial maps can be found here.)
Therefore, the First reviews the confirmation of the reorganization plan without remanding to the District Court. It concludes that there is no statute of frauds problem because “No separate written document was needed as this dispute concerns no sale of real property. “ Finally, the Court rejects the creditor’s objection that they were “erroneously grouped into an artificial convenience class in the revised plan in order to orchestrate acceptance of the plan” by saying “ Once their interests as creditors are fully protected... [they have no] legitimate grounds for objecting to the reorganization plan.”
As a matter of appellate jurisdiction, the First holds that “Phasing Rights Motion is a final determination under [28 U.S.C.] § 158(d)
Comments