In Black v. Whitestone Estates Condo. Homeowners’ Ass’n, the supreme court held that a condominium had the authority to disregard payment directives concerning the back-payment of unpaid fees when it was provided for in the governing declaration. Craig Black and Camille Brill (Blacks) claimed that the arrangement for monthly dues for the maintenance of driveways on the property violated the condominium’s governing declaration. They proposed a new approach which was rejected in a vote of the unit owners. They then began to withhold a portion of the monthly dues in protest. After some years, the Blacks sent a letter to the unit owners that announced the end of the dues protest. They enclosed a check for the previous fifty months and clarified that the payment was to cover the fees that had been assessed beginning January 2010. The owners voted to disregard the directive to apply the payment to the most recent debts and instead apply it to the oldest debts first. The Blacks did not object. The condominium subsequently sought to recover the remaining unpaid assessments and fees. The Blacks asserted that their payment directive dictated that their lump sum payment covered the most recent debts and the older debts were outside the statute of limitations. The superior court found for the condominium and awarded damages. On appeal, the Blacks argued that the superior court erred in determining that their payment directives were ineffective. The supreme court affirmed the superior court’s finding that the payment directives could not override the provision in the governing declaration that granted the right to apply payments to the oldest debts first. The supreme court found that the express term of the declaration controls. Further, the court found that the plain text of the directive meant that the condominium’s discretion extended over all payments, regardless of whether payment directives are given or not. The supreme court held that the condominium therefore had the authority to disregard the Blacks’ payment directives concerning the back-payment of unpaid fees because it was provided for in the governing declaration.
 446 P.3d 786 (Alaska 2019).