Revoked a unit owner's parking privileges over special assessments she said had been imposed without authority, and had her car booted when she did not move it.

A tribunal rejected this claim.

Skouras v. Victoria Hall Condominium · 73 AD3d 902 (2d Dept 2010) · App Div 2d Dept · Index 73 AD3d 902

Outcome

Board prevailed

Filed

Last decision

2010-05-11

Elapsed

yrs

Brought by

unit owner

Posture

summary judgment

What the court held

Where a condominium's by-laws authorise the board to adopt rules and to collect common charges and assessments, the board's adoption and enforcement of a parking rule revoking the privileges of an owner in arrears is reviewed under the business judgment rule — the inquiry limited to whether the action was authorised and taken in good faith and in furtherance of the condominium's legitimate interests. Because the rule itself was within the board's authority, the "booting" of the owner's car pursuant to it was too, and was not a conversion. An allegation of deliberate singling-out or selective enforcement must be supported by a triable issue of fact; a bare allegation does not reopen the inquiry.

“The plaintiff also failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to her allegation that the board deliberately singled her out for harmful treatment or selective enforcement of its parking rule”
73 AD3d at 904

Outcome in full

The board and its managing agent prevailed completely, with costs. Denial of their summary judgment motion reversed on the law and the motion granted, dismissing the complaint in its entirety — fiduciary breach and conversion both.

The harm continued while the case ran

The owner was without her parking space, and at one point without the use of her vehicle, throughout. Nothing in the decision suggests any of it was restored while the case ran.

What it cost

Not disclosed. No decision in this case states a figure, and we publish no estimate. Why costs are mostly blank.

What would have prevented this

The owner's underlying complaint — that the special assessments were imposed ultra vires — was never decided. It could not be, because the only vehicle available to her was a damages action in which the board's authority is presumed and she carried the burden of producing evidence of bad faith she had no right to obtain. Virginia's Common Interest Community Ombudsman takes a notice of final adverse decision within 30 days and reviews the association's process without requiring the owner to prove the board's state of mind first.

Sources

Read in full and verified 2026-08-04.

← Back to Selective Enforcement and Retaliation