Hill v. Paluzzi

A monetary payment provided for in a consent decree between a developer and a group of condominium owners was not enforceable through contempt proceedings.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

A group of Carrington Park condominium owners “the owners” sued developer Phillip Hill, several corporate entities purportedly owned or operated by Hill, and others for violating condominium association bylaws, improperly leasing condominium units, converting association funds, and misusing common areas. The owners sought both legal and equitable relief. On the day of trial, the parties reached a settlement agreement, resulting in a consent decree that was made the order of the court. Approximately three weeks later, the owners moved the trial court to hold Hill and several of his companies “the defendants”1 in contempt for failing to comply with the decree. The trial court granted the motion, and the defendants appeal. For reasons that follow, we affirm in part and reverse in part. “A trial court has wide discretion in determining whether its orders have been violated and such determination will not be disturbed absent a gross abuse of discretion.”2 We will affirm a trial court’s ruling on a motion for contempt if there is any evidence to support it.3

The evidence is not in dispute. On March 26, 2002, the trial court entered a consent decree reflecting the parties’ settlement agreement. As explained in the decree, the defendants agreed to pay the owners $120,000. The defendants made an initial $60,000 payment and, under the decree, were required to pay the remaining $60,000 on or before April 12, 2002. The decree further ordered the defendants to pay certain association fees on or before April 5, 2002. In addition, it permanently enjoined the defendants “and those parties acting in concert with the defendants from leasing any condominium unit . . . unless they have received proper authorization in accordance with the Bylaws and Restrictions and Covenants of the Association.” Apparently, Hill and his companies owned numerous units in the condominium building and, according to the owners, had violated association bylaws when leasing them.

Hill v. Paluzzi

A monetary payment provided for in a consent decree between a developer and a group of condominium owners was not enforceable through contempt proceedings.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report