News & Insights
Ken Michaels Authors Illinois Institute of Continuing Legal Education December Flashpoints, “Appellate Court Affirms No Fiduciary Duty Owed by Association To Protect Others Outside Perimeter of Condominium Property.”
The First District affirmed dismissal of a case brought by the administrator of an estate of a drowned four-year-old boy against ten defendants including condominium and homeowners’ associations, management companies, and developers. Purevdori v. Mission Hills Condominium T-2 Ass’n, 2024 IL App (1st) 231693.
The plaintiff filed a 50-count complaint against the defendants including claims for (1) breach of fiduciary duties; (2) violations of the Illinois Wrongful Death Act, 740 ILCS 180/0.01, et seq., and Illinois Survival Act, 755 ILCS 5/27-6; (3) willful and wanton negligence and misconduct; and (4) breach of contract. 2024 IL App (1st) 231693 at ¶¶1 and 11. The claims for breach of fiduciary duties against the homeowners’ associations and developers were premised on (1) common-law duties; (2) §18.4 of the Condominium Property Act, 765 ILCS 605/18.4; and (3) the defendants’ status as joint venturers. 2024 IL App (1st) 231693 at ¶11. The complaint also alleged that the fence had been erected to protect minor children from the reasonably foreseeable danger presented by the retention pond and that defendants had a duty to maintain the fence. Id.
The appellate court held that regarding physical premises of the association, a board’s fiduciary duties do not extend to protecting people outside the perimeter of the condominium property.
For further analysis please visit: December 2024 IICLE FLASHPOINTS | IICLE
The plaintiff filed a 50-count complaint against the defendants including claims for (1) breach of fiduciary duties; (2) violations of the Illinois Wrongful Death Act, 740 ILCS 180/0.01, et seq., and Illinois Survival Act, 755 ILCS 5/27-6; (3) willful and wanton negligence and misconduct; and (4) breach of contract. 2024 IL App (1st) 231693 at ¶¶1 and 11. The claims for breach of fiduciary duties against the homeowners’ associations and developers were premised on (1) common-law duties; (2) §18.4 of the Condominium Property Act, 765 ILCS 605/18.4; and (3) the defendants’ status as joint venturers. 2024 IL App (1st) 231693 at ¶11. The complaint also alleged that the fence had been erected to protect minor children from the reasonably foreseeable danger presented by the retention pond and that defendants had a duty to maintain the fence. Id.
The appellate court held that regarding physical premises of the association, a board’s fiduciary duties do not extend to protecting people outside the perimeter of the condominium property.
For further analysis please visit: December 2024 IICLE FLASHPOINTS | IICLE