Shorewood West Condominium Association v. Sadri
WA · Supreme Court of Washington
Member win · rentals
What happened
Shorewood West’s 1978 declaration already limited units to residential/single-family use and barred leases under 30 days. Concerned about rental percentages, owners in August 1994 amended bylaws (not the declaration) to make the community owner-occupied, with limited exceptions, grandfathering existing leases as of that date. Sadri and Grazul bought in December 1993, opposed the amendment, moved out in 1995, and leased their unit. The association sued in 1996 for a declaration/injunction. The trial court held the bylaw could not bind pre-amendment owners and awarded them fees; the Court of Appeals reversed, applying a reasonableness standard and allowing retroactive application. On February 10, 2000, the Washington Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals.
What the court (or agency) held
Sadri and Grazul won. Although a leasing restriction adopted under the statute can bind existing owners if properly adopted, a use restriction that appears only in bylaws—and not in the declaration—does not comply with the Horizontal Property Regimes Act, RCW 64.32.090 (declaration must state use restrictions) and related amendment/recording rules. The leasing bylaw was invalid; attorney fees to the owners.
Why this matters for members
In older Washington HPRA condos, substantive use limits (including leasing bans) belong in the recorded declaration, not a bylaw-only vote. Boards that “fix” rental problems with bylaw amendments risk unenforceability even if the vote was large and the rule seems reasonable. Check which statute (HPRA vs. Condominium Act) applies and whether the declaration was actually amended and recorded.
What the member did
Resisted enforcement of a bylaw-only leasing restriction and sought review in the Supreme Court after the Court of Appeals upheld the association.
Questions for the board
- Is any leasing or occupancy limit in the recorded declaration, or only in bylaws/rules?
- What vote and recording steps does RCW 64.32 require to amend the declaration’s use statement?
- Were existing owners told a bylaw vote alone could ban future leasing?
- What short-term (under 30 days) limits already appear in the original declaration?
Questions for a lawyer
- Does HPRA or the later Condominium Act govern this community’s creation date?
- Is the challenged leasing rule only in bylaws, making it invalid under Shorewood West?
- If the declaration were properly amended, could the restriction bind owners who bought earlier?
- What fee recovery is available to owners who defeat an invalid bylaw restriction?
Citation
Shorewood West Condominium Association v. Sadri, 140 Wn.2d 47, 992 P.2d 1008 (2000) (2000-02-10). Supreme Court of Washington. Outcome chip: member_win. Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/washington/supreme-court/2000/67529-5-1.html
_General information, not legal advice. Outcomes turn on facts and current law._
General information, not legal advice. Outcomes turn on facts and current law.