Condo Board's Attempt to Replace Windows with New Policy Fails in Court

Window replacements are notoriously expensive and difficult to coordinate, and yet may be increasingly necessary as buildings age and energy efficiency compliance mandates ratchet up. But as Mangold v. Board of Managers of Meadow Court Condominium illustrates, condo boards may face difficulties in maintaining windows when the governing documents classify them as part of the unit and not part of the common elements. 

THE DETAILS

The board of Meadow Court Condominium, a 100-year-old building in Westchester, adopted a policy for replacing the building’s exterior windows. It needed to replace energy-inefficient windows that had outlived their intended life and usefulness, and there were significant economies of scale to be realized if the building could replace them in one comprehensive program at bulk discount rates. The program required unit-owners to replace their windows with a specific type. Anyone who did not comply with the board’s policy was subject to fines.

The problem was that under the condominium’s declaration, “windows which open from a unit shall be deemed part of a unit” and not part of the common elements. This means that the unit-owners, not the board, own the windows, and therefore could not be compelled to replace them just because the board adopted a new policy. Despite that limitation, almost every unit-owner in the building supported the board’s program – except for the Mangolds, the owners of a sixth-floor apartment. They brought a lawsuit to invalidate the policy. 

In response, the board amended its bylaws to give the board the express authority to require unit-owners to replace original windows at their sole cost and expense. Again, that bylaw amendment was supported by every unit-owner but the Mangolds. 

IN COURT

In a decision issued April 2024, the court sided with the plaintiffs over the board and declared that the window replacement policy was unenforceable: “[As] the declaration indicates that individual windows are not common elements, plaintiffs cannot be compelled to replace their individual windows, nor can they be compelled to pay for the replacement of other unit-owners’ windows in which they have no property interest.”

The court also invalidated the bylaw amendment purporting to give the board authority to require window replacements because it did not also amend the condo declaration to reclassify the windows as common elements. So long as the windows were the property of the unit-owners, the board could not mandate their replacement. 

THE LESSON FOR BOARDS

The case illustrates some of the difficulties that condominiums may have in maintaining the building’s exterior envelope when the governing documents classify the windows as part of the unit and not part of the common elements. In this case, the many apparent benefits of a coordinated building-wide replacement program were not enough to persuade the court to give the board dominion over the unit owners’ “private property.” 

This case may be distinguishable from other similar situations in that it appears that the board never made a finding that the plaintiff’s specific windows were damaged or otherwise needed to be replaced. If the board had been armed with a finding from an engineer that these particular windows had failed, perhaps the unit-owners could have been compelled to join the replacement program as part of their contractual duty to keep their apartments in good repair. Here, however, there were allegations in the record that the plaintiff’s particular windows were in good condition. 

COUNSEL 

For Meadow Court Condominium & Skyline Windows: Braverman Greenspun

For the Mangolds: Veneruso, Curto, Schwartz and Curto 

William D. McCracken is a partner at the law firm Moritt Hock & Hamroff. The statements and views in this article are his own and not necessarily those of the firm.