Holt v. Keer
Annotate this CaseThis case involved a four-unit condominium located on Boston Avenue in Hampton, known as the Boston Four Condominium. Each unit was a free-standing residential building. The four units are arranged in a rectangle; units 7 and 9 are adjacent to one another bordering Boston Avenue, and units 7R and 9R are rear units located behind units 7 and 9 respectively. In addition to the residential buildings, the condominium also includes certain property around the four units that the declaration designates as either “common area” or “limited common area.” Common area is property in which each unit owner has “an equal one-fourth (25%) undivided interest.” In the mid-2000s, the unit owners had several disagreements relating to the operation of the condominium. The issues included allocation of costs relating to the units’ connection to new sewer lines, the propriety of additions made to units 7R and 9R, and use of the common area. Pursuant to a clause in the declaration requiring the arbitration of disputes between and/or among unit owners, the parties submitted their dispute to a neutral arbitrator. Respondent Richard Holt filed a petition in superior court seeking to confirm the arbitrator's decision. Petitioners Gary and Katherine Keer and Frederick Guthrie filed a separate action appealing the arbitrator's decision. The trial court consolidated the two actions, held no hearing, granted Holt's petition and denied the Keers' and Guthrie's petitions. The court then confirmed the arbitrator’s award and “required [all parties] to comply with its terms.” On August 28, 2012, the condominium association recorded an amendment to the declaration and bylaws (2012 amendment). This amendment changed the designation of certain condominium property from common area to limited common area, to the benefit of units 7R and 9R, and to the detriment of the remaining units. In response to the amendment, the Keers filed a “Motion to Bring Forward to Enforce the Court Order/Contempt” with the trial court. In the motion, the Keers alleged numerous violations of the arbitrator’s 2009 decision. The trial court denied this motion. In April 2013, the condominium association recorded another amendment to the condominium instruments. This amendment inserted language into the declaration providing that written consent of three-fourths of the unit owners is sufficient to waive certain restrictive covenants. The amendment also inserted language into the bylaws that specifically allows condominium association meetings to take place if three-fourths of the unit owners attend. In May 2013, the Keers filed a “Motion for Contempt/Enforce the Court Orders” with the trial court. Among other things, the Keers alleged that the 2012 amendment violated the terms of the Condominium Act. The Keers also alleged that both amendments to the declaration were not legally effective because they had not been signed by a majority of the owners. The trial court denied the Keers’ motion. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the 2012 amendment was unlawful. Furthermore, the Court concluded the trial court either misconstrued the nature of the Keers’ request, or that it simply failed to address their statutory claims: the trial court erred when it stated that the Keers were only challenging "the court’s past decisions regarding the Condominium rules," and when it failed to address the Keers’ statutory argument. The Supreme Court vacated the trial court’s ruling on the Keers’ motion for contempt and remanded the case for further consideration.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.