At the end of the month, our Portland office will be moving to a new location. Like any move there is always an element of joy and a modicum of pain. We are overjoyed with the new location and the new space. As many of you can relate, moving comes with a fair amount of work. Offices can accumulate as much junk as any homeowner can and weeding through can be a painful task. In my effort to help clean up the office, I found a package of ramen noodles that expired in 2012. That is two full years before I even started working at Barker Martin! (I apologize to any former employee who was saving those for a special occasion). read more

One of the main takeaways from the Washington Supreme Court's recent decision in Bilanko v. Barclay Court is that a declaration amendment that is adopted in a manner that does not exceed its legal authority and and does not appear to be borne out of fraud or other wrongdoing cannot be challenged more than one year after it is recorded. This is welcome news to associations, which had been thrown onto unsteady legal ground after the Court's earlier decision in Club Envy v. Ridpath called into question the enforceability of rental cap amendments that were over one-year old, but had not been passed with at least 90% owner consent. read more

In last week's post "Hot Off the Press," we advised readers that the Washington Supreme Court published on that day Bilanko v. Barclay Court Owners Association,an important decision relating to challenges to declaration amendments involving Washington "New Act" condominiums. The decision can be found here. Over the past week we've had time to analyze the opinion and have come up with a few summary points. read more

Bilanko is the most recent addition to the ongoing saga in Washington law and the enforceability of condominium declaration amendments under the WCA (RCW 64.34). Bilanko involved a homeowner challenge to the enforceability of a declaration amendment that restricted unit rentals. In a unanimous decision, the Washington Supreme Court held the unit owner's challenge untimely and time barred under RCW 64.34.264(2), which requires any challenge to the validity of an amendment to be brought within one year of the amendment's recording. The Washington Supreme Court did not explicitly overturn Fillmore or Club Envy, but certainly limited the application of those decisions to many existing declaration amendments. At first glance, the case may appear to validate amendments recorded at least one year ago absent fraud or wrong doing. Unfortunately, as is often the case (pun intended), the Bilanko decision isn't quite that straight forward. Associations who have recorded statements or included language in resale certificates nullifying or declining to enforce prior amendments as a result of Filmore, however, should definitely revisit the issue in light of this case. read more

As mentioned in last week's submission, associations are frequently confronted with whether something must be disclosed, could be disclosed or should be disclosed. Some questions are easy. For example an Oregon Condo must disclose to prospective purchases, the existence of car charging stations and the owner's related responsibilities. That's a black-and-white question and answer, but consider the following hypothetical situation: XYZ Association received a report recommending full replacement of the roof but doesn't yet know how much it will cost. They are getting currently obtaining bids for the work. What must the Association disclose as part of a resale certificate or other disclosure? read more