Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Golden Key, LLC v. Harper, 170 Vt. 641 (2000)

Citation
Golden Key, LLC v. Harper, 170 Vt. 641 (2000)
Parent Document
Golden Key, LLC v. Harper, 170 Vt. 641 (2000)
Jurisdiction
Vermont (state)
Effective Date
2000-04-10

Full Text

1,326 chars
We conclude tenant’s apartment is not being “converted” within the meaning of 9 VS.A. § 4467(g) and 27 VS.A. §§ 1331 and 1333. Conversion from rental units to condominiums generally involves little or no structural change to the property. See, e.g., Royal Parke Corp. v. Town of Essex, 145 Vt. 376, 378, 488 A.2d 766, 767 (1985) (“At the time of the change from apartment complex to condominium the property remained physically unaltered.”); In re Lowe, 164 Vt. 167, 171, 666 A.2d 1178, 1181 (1995) (conversion from rental property to condominium ownership is change of ownership, not change of use, and thus, beyond scope of zoning regulation). In *642this case, the entire building is being demolished. See Park East Apartments, Inc. v. 233 East 86th Street Corp., 529 N.Y.S.2d 674, 679 (Civ. Ct. 1988) (newly constructed condominium building built on site of former, demolished building, not a “conversion project” within meaning of Condominium and Cooperative Abuse Relief Act), aff’d, 543 N.Y.S.2d 610 (S. Ct. 1989). The demolition and new construction in this case is not a mere “change in character.” Thus, it is plain that the Condominium Ownership Act does not apply. See Russell v. Armitage, 166 Vt. 392, 403, 697 A.2d 630, 637 (1997) (when meaning of statute is plain on face, we enforce it according to its terms).