Ada Greenberg et al. v. William Corbo et al. (2013)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE APPLICATION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD (100.31)

I. Introduction

Before the court is an application by the plaintiffs to confirm an arbitration award issued by an arbitrator of the American Arbitration Association.   The plaintiffs Greenberg and Yarus are the owners of one residential unit of Arther Court II Condominium located in Greenwich, Connecticut.   The defendants William Corbo and Theresa Corbo are the owners of the second, and only other, residential unit of Arther Court II. The two units have equal voting rights on all condominium matters.   There have been a myriad of disputes over the years between the plaintiffs and defendants, including a prior arbitration and award which was confirmed by the Superior Court.   Greenberg v. Corbo, Superior Court, judicial district of Stamford/Norwalk at Stamford, CV 12 5013794.   The Bylaws of Arther Court II provide for arbitration of disputes arising out of condominium-related matters.

In this case the arbitrator issued an Award on January 19, 2013.   The pending application was filed on July 3, 2013.   Greenberg and Yarus have filed appearances to represent themselves, and their application, among other things, includes, as Exhibit D, a copy of the Award.   The application has appeared on the calendar three times:  August 12, September 23 and October 7, 2013.   On the last two occasions the undersigned judge trial referee presided over the calendar.   Although urged to file appearances on both occasions, only Theresa Corbo has done so and that was on November 8, 2013.   There has been no written opposition to confirming the Award filed, and through questions and answers in open court none of the parties has expressed opposition to confirming the award.   Nevertheless, the parties continue to disagree about almost everything else.   Indeed, the application before the court contains exhibits that appear to document that the parties have not agreed on a third member for the Arther II Executive Board (as directed by the arbitrator) that icy and non-productive communications between the parties continue, and at least one confrontation between them resulted in the police being called and a petition for relief from abuse being filed in court.   See Application, Exhibits E–M.

II. Discussion

The Award is a lengthy and carefully written document which includes a comprehensive description of its findings of fact and law and a thoughtful and well considered itemization of the final Award.   A brief summary of only a few of the arbitrator's findings will suffice to give a picture of the situation.   The condominium association has never elected the three-person Executive Board that is required by the Declaration and Bylaws, referred to as Community Documents in the Award.   There are no rules or procedures established.   The Corbos have acted as association officers.   No budget has ever been adopted.   Fines have been attempted to be levied against the plaintiffs.  “The parties clearly do not understand the difference between what they own in fee and what is an appurtenant right.   Specifically, they believe they own a landscaped area in front of their respective units.   They do not.”   Findings ¶ 16, Ex. D to Application.   The arbitrator found both the plaintiffs and the defendants fell far short of their legal and contractual duties.   See particularly id., Findings ¶¶ 17–19, 22, 24.  “The parties have engaged in a useless, ineffective war of refusing to accept mail from each other.”   Id., Findings ¶ 23.

Because the arbitrator found that the failure to elect a three member Executive Board in accordance with the Community Documents was “at the heart of the dysfunctional Association” (Findings ¶ 6) he ordered that an Executive Board be elected by the Unit Owners and to include as the third member the association's accountant or some other person not related to a Unit Owner or someone the Unit Owners agreed upon.   Ex. D. Award, ¶ 1.   The Award included a number of other provisions essentially directing plaintiffs and defendants to abide by the Community Documents.   It also found invalid all fines attempted to be levied against the plaintiffs and denied the plaintiffs' request for money damages.

III. Conclusion

The court finds the Award to be within the parties' submission and well founded in fact and in law.   It further finds there are no objections to the Award.   The court orders the Award to be confirmed in full, and judgment may enter thereon.

The court also is also aware that the parties have not agreed on a third Executive Board member and that little, if anything, has been done to implement the Award since January of this year.   The plaintiffs would have this court take additional steps, such as contempt orders, to enforce the Award.   The court declines this invitation;  at the very least it is premature as this decision is the first court substantive order in the matter.   Additionally, the court's jurisdiction and responsibility in matters such as this one generally is confined to confirming, vacating or modifying arbitration awards.   General Statutes § 52–420.

The words of the arbitrator in describing the situation prior to his Award are prescient, and apply full well to the present circumstance after the Award.

The parties accuse each other of harassing behavior.   At times this behavior has resulted in police intervention.   By their pleadings and testimony the parties seek a resolution.   I can offer no solace as civility cannot be adjudicated.   The [Connecticut Common Interest Ownership] Act and Community Documents create a scheme for self-government for owners of common interest properties.   The parties need to strictly adhere to the provisions of those documents.

Ex. D., Findings ¶ 25.   The parties should take note and conduct themselves accordingly and in accord with this decision and judgment confirming the Award.

TAGGART D. ADAMS

JUDGE TRIAL REFEREE

Adams, Taggart D., J.T.R.