Spickets Commons Condominium Association Inc. vs. Faith Butler, Individually, and as Trustee of the Butler Family Trust (CA No. 2577CV00887)
Condominium boards are no strangers to unusual disputes. From barking dogs to parking violations, from smoking complaints to pet waste disposal, boards must constantly navigate the delicate balance between enforcing community rules and respecting residents’ rights. Yet occasionally, a case comes along that tests even the most seasoned board member’s patience and creativity, particularly when medical conditions create tangible problems that affect the entire community. The Spicket Commons Condominium Association recently faced precisely such a challenge when a Unit Owner involuntarily urinated in the building’s common areas. Following standard protocol, the Board sent a formal demand letter, then filed for an injunctive order in Essex Superior Court when the incidents continued. After the Unit Owner violated the injunction, the Association filed a contempt complaint. At the hearing, which the Unit Owner did not attend, Judge William F. Bloomer, heard testimony from the property manager regarding discussions and proposed methods, such as adult diapers to prevent the reoccurrence. Judge Bloomer determined that while the Unit Owner did not knowingly and willfully urinate in the common areas, she was aware of her problem and refused to take appropriate steps. Judge Bloomer issued a supplemental order that the Unit Owner was required to wear adult diapers whenever in the common areas.
This ruling represents a watershed moment for condominium law by masterfully separating the issue of willfulness from responsibility for outcomes. Judge Bloomer focused on the effect rather than intent, demonstrating that an association’s statutory duty to maintain safe and sanitary common areas under the State Sanitary Code does not conflict with legal protections for residents with disabilities. Instead, the two principles coexist harmoniously. The order functions as a practical reasonable accommodation that allows the Unit Owner to continue using common areas while protecting the property and neighbors from health hazards. Who knew that the solution to a building’s biggest problem could be found in the incontinence aisle at the drugstore? This approach avoids the trap of either ignoring a genuine health crisis or discriminating against a resident with a medical condition.
For boards facing similar situations involving medical conditions that create nuisances or code violations, the Spicket Commons ruling establishes a powerful precedent. The key is to focus on the tangible problem and its impact on the community, follow proper procedure (demand letter, injunction, contempt), and seek creative remedies that solve the actual problem rather than punish the individual. The ruling affirms that condominium governance is fundamentally about finding solutions that allow people to live together peacefully and safely. By maintaining this balance of holding residents accountable for outcomes while recognizing the involuntary nature of their actions, boards can navigate these sensitive situations with both compassion and effectiveness. After all, the next time your board faces an unusual problem, remember: sometimes the answer really is just a matter of putting on your big boy pants.
Written by
Mansour Chaya
Up Next...
