Meadowbrook Condominium Ass'n v. South Burlington Realty Corp., 565 A.2d 238 (1989)

Citation: Meadowbrook Condominium Ass'n v. South Burlington Realty Corp., 565 A.2d 238 (1989)
Parent Document: Meadowbrook Condominium Ass'n v. South Burlington Realty Corp., 565 A.2d 238 (1989)
Jurisdiction: Vermont (state)
Effective Date: 1989-06-23
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1561260/meadowbrook-condominium-assn-v-... ↗

Full Text

1,052 chars

The trial court relied upon four cases from other jurisdictions in support of its holding that apportionment of damages would be improper in the present case. The first of these cases, Stony Ridge Hill Condominium Owners Ass’n v. Auerbach, 64 Ohio App. 2d 40, 410 N.E.2d 782 (1979), involved allegations that the developer had misrepresented the defective roof of the condominium as a “twenty-year roof.” Because the alleged misrepresentations had been made to only four of the twenty-four unit owners, the court faced the question of apportionment. The court opined that each of the four owners who had purchased in reliance on the misrepresentation “has a right to have the whole damage to the entire common area of the building remedied and completely satisfied.” Id. at 43, 410 *24N.E.2d at 785. Otherwise, the court stated, “the consequent repair of only one-sixth of the roof would still leave the roof in the same leaky condition, and would be the equivalent of giving plaintiff no legal remedy or relief whatever.” Id. at 44, 410 N.E.2d at 786.

Other Sections in This Document (98)

Full Text