PROPERTY LAW
Supreme Court of Alaska (2024)
Caitlyn Leary
In Cooper Leasing, LLC v. Woronzof Condominium Ass’n, 548 P.3d 636 (Alaska 2024), the Supreme Court held that equitable doctrines could not defeat an owner’s recorded title to condominium common areas without the owner’s clear intention to transfer the property interest. (Id. at 651–53). The Woronzof Condominium Association managed a building in Anchorage where Cooper Leasing owned two ground-floor commercial units. (Id. at 641). Under the Horizontal Property Regimes Act (HPRA), the Association maintained a recorded declaration identifying each owner’s interest in the property, permissible uses, and access to common areas. (Id.). For 30 years, Cooper Leasing’s units had exclusive use of 10 public parking spaces outside the building during business hours and a basement storage space. (Id. at 643). But neither agreement was recorded in the condominium’s declaration. (Id.). In 2016, the Association wanted to rent out the parking spaces Cooper Leasing had been using and decided Cooper Leasing should pay rent for the storage areas. (Id.). Cooper Leasing argued that, despite no written record, the court should enforce the agreements under equitable estoppel, quasi-estoppel, and quasi-contract. (Id. at 644). However, the Court reasoned that Cooper Leasing’s use of the parking spots during business hours did not amount to possession that could estop the Association from disputing Cooper Leasing’s exclusive right to the spots. (Id. at 651). Next, the Court determined that because the Association merely managed the property under the condominium’s declaration, it did not have a property interest in the storage spaces. (Id. at 653). That is, the unit owners had the property interest, and the Association traded property it did not own. (Id.). As such, the Court remanded the storage issue to the superior court to consider whether the unit owners knowingly accepted the trade. (Id. at 654). Affirming in part and remanding in part the superior court’s decision, the Supreme Court held that equitable doctrines could not be used to assert a property interest in a condominium without showing that the rightful property owner intended to transfer their interest. (Id. at 651–53).
