Where the association won

The snowplow contractor. The court applied the business judgment rule, citing 27A V.S.A. § 3-103, the uniform comments, and Levandusky v. One Fifth Avenue Apartment Corp., 553 N.E.2d 1317, 1322 (N.Y. 1990): “So long as the board acts for the purposes of the [association], within the scope of its authority and in good faith, courts will not substitute their judgment for the board's.” This is the most explicit Vermont adoption of Levandusky-style deference to a condominium board.

The special assessment. A $1,510.20 assessment for a severed floor joist was upheld. There was no evidence the board knew of the problem before the owner bought, and the court held any challenge to the annual assessments “could not survive the business judgment rule”.

Parking. No bylaw had ever assigned spaces; summary judgment granted.

Drafts and air infiltration. Summary judgment denied on a claim that the association refuses to repair a common-element defect, because the motion did not address the claim as pleaded.

The document hierarchy, in order

The lesson generalises past plumbing. Vermont's statute establishes a ranking, and a board that allocates a cost at the wrong level of it has not allocated the cost.

1. 1. The Act. Section 3-107(a) puts maintenance, repair and replacement of common elements on the association.
2. 2. The declaration. This is the only instrument that can vary that allocation. Section 3-115(c)(1) permits benefit-based and limited-common-element assessment allocations “to the extent required by the declaration”.
3. 3. The bylaws. Governance mechanics. Section 2-103(c): if they conflict with the declaration, the declaration wins.
4. 4. Board rules. Subject to § 3-120's notice-and-comment procedure and the requirement that every rule be reasonable.

Why this catches so many Vermont associations

Amending bylaws is easy. Amending a declaration is not — and in Vermont, an amendment that reallocates interests or common-expense liability requires unanimous owner consent under Watson v. Village at Northshore I Ass'n, 2018 VT 8 and, for older condominiums under the Condominium Ownership Act, 27 V.S.A. § 1306(b) as read in Arapaho Owners Ass'n v. Alpert, 2015 VT 93.

A board that cannot get unanimity for a declaration amendment and puts the cost allocation in the bylaws instead has produced a provision that will not hold when an owner reads the statute.

The one owner charge that is statutory

Section 3-115(e) permits an association to assess a single owner for damage caused by that owner's “willful misconduct or gross negligence” — and only “after notice and hearing.” That is a high standard and a procedural condition, not a general route to billing an owner for a repair in their own space.

Applicability note

Sections 3-107 and 3-115 appear on neither § 1-204 retroactive list, so neither reaches Vermont communities created before January 1, 1999. For those condominiums the maintenance allocation comes from the Condominium Ownership Act and the declaration — a different analysis with a different answer.

What to watch next

The drafts-and-air-infiltration claim was not resolved. A claim that an association refuses to repair a defective common element is the natural sequel to this ruling, and it is still live.