Since beginning this collection, I’ve explored Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin legislation because it pertains to the allocation of duties for property insurance coverage protection between unit homeowners and condominium associations. In neighboring Minnesota, the final rule is comparable: Condominium associations are accountable for insuring and sustaining frequent components and structural elements of the constructing, whereas unit homeowners are accountable for their private property and inside of their models.
A “Widespread Component” is all parts of the frequent curiosity group Minn. Stat. § 515B.1‑103(7). Whereas a “Restricted Widespread Component” means a portion of the frequent components allotted by the declaration or operation of part 515B.2-109(c) or (d) for the unique use of a number of however fewer than the entire models. Minn. Stat. § 515B.1‑103(20).
Minn. Stat. § 515A.2‑102(4) defines unit boundaries and default classifications for Restricted Widespread Components:
Besides as in any other case offered by the declaration:
(1) If partitions, flooring, or ceilings are designated as boundaries of a unit, all lath, furring, wallboard, plasterboard, plaster, paneling, tiles, wallpaper, paint, completed flooring, and another supplies constituting any a part of the completed surfaces thereof are part of the unit, and all different parts of the partitions, flooring, or ceilings are part of the frequent components.
(2) If any chute, flue, duct, pipe, wire, conduit, bearing wall, bearing column, or another fixture lies partially inside and partially outdoors of the designated boundaries of a unit, any portion thereof serving solely that unit is a restricted frequent aspect allotted solely to that unit, and any portion thereof serving a couple of unit or any portion of the frequent components is part of the frequent components.
(3) Topic to the provisions of paragraph (2), all areas, inside partitions, and different fixtures and enhancements inside the boundaries of a unit are part of the unit.
(4) All exterior doorways and home windows and any shutters, awnings, window bins, doorsteps, stoops, porches, balconies, patios, or different fixtures designed to serve a single unit, however positioned outdoors the unit’s boundaries, are restricted frequent components allotted solely to that unit.
What Does This Imply for Condominium Homeowners?
Like Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin, Minnesota locations nice weight on a condominium’s governing paperwork. Nevertheless, the Minnesota statute does outline some phrases. Beneath § 515A.2-105, each affiliation should undertake bylaws and a declaration that clearly allocates an undivided curiosity within the frequent components and allocates any restricted frequent components. § 515A.2-109 states that the declaration shall specify to which unit every restricted frequent aspect is allotted, aside from the restricted frequent components described in 515A.2-10(2) and (4). Courts in Minnesota seek advice from the statute but in addition to the rental declarations. However whose accountability is it to keep up and restore frequent and restricted frequent components?
In a single notable case, Gallery Tower Condominium Ass’n v. Carlson, 2011 WL 2302701 (Minn. Ct. App. June 13, 2011), the Minnesota Courtroom of Appeals addressed the allocation of upkeep duties between unit homeowners and the condominium affiliation, focusing particularly on riser pipes linked to the HVAC system. The court docket defined that, below each the condominium declaration and the Minnesota Widespread Curiosity Possession Act (MCIOA), unit homeowners are accountable for the inside of their models, whereas the affiliation is accountable for sustaining and repairing frequent components and restricted frequent components. The court docket rejected the unit homeowners’ argument that the riser pipes have been restricted frequent components serving solely their unit, citing statutory language that classifies any element positioned outdoors the unit boundaries and serving your entire constructing as a typical aspect. Accordingly, the court docket held that the affiliation had each the authority and the accountability to keep up and restore the riser pipes, even with out inspecting the person unit. The choice bolstered that when components lie outdoors a unit’s bodily boundaries and profit the broader group, the duty to keep up them rests with the affiliation, not the person proprietor.
Takeaway
In Minnesota, when components lie outdoors a unit’s bodily boundaries and profit the broader group, the duty to keep up them rests with the affiliation, not the person proprietor.