Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

ATHERTON CONDO APARTMENT-OWNERS ASS'N BD OF DIRECTORS v. Blume Dev. Co., 799 P.2d 250 (1990)

Citation
ATHERTON CONDO APARTMENT-OWNERS ASS'N BD OF DIRECTORS v. Blume Dev. Co., 799 P.2d 250 (1990)
Parent Document
ATHERTON CONDO APARTMENT-OWNERS ASS'N BD OF DIRECTORS v. Blume Dev. Co., 799 P.2d 250 (1990)
Jurisdiction
Washington (state)
Effective Date
1990-11-01

Other Sections in This Document (121)

Full Text

629 chars
*534 [17] No genuine issue of material fact exists to establish liability on the part of Westlin. The defects which Owners allege exist at Atherton fall into two categories: (1) construction defects for unauthorized departures from the plans as submitted by Westlin and approved by Lynnwood, or (2) construction defects for unauthorized departures from the handwritten notations of John Farrens. Because the alleged defects do not result from compliance with the approved building plans which Westlin designed, Owners' claim was properly dismissed. See Covil v. Robert & Co. Assocs., 112 Ga. App. 163, 168, 144 S.E.2d 450 (1965).