Condo owner could add dryer vent builder forgot

Danetta Garfink may now dry her clothes in peace.The Baltimore County woman has been embroiled in litigation with the Council of Unit Owners at her condominium complex since 2000, when she rerouted the venting system for her dryer from the furnace room, where the builder had mistakenly installed it, to the outside of the house.Last week, the state's top court decreed that Garfink did not need the council's approval to reroute the vent, and that she may leave it where it is.It is obvious that the intention of the drafters of the easement was that in the circumstances described in the easement, the unit owners would have the automatic right to maintain necessary and required venting and ducts without the permission of the Board, Judge Dale R. Cathell wrote for a 4-3 majority. We believe that in the unusual circumstances of this case, the situation is the functional equivalent of maintenance necessary for the reasonable and safe operation of the dryer. Our holding is limited, however, to the particular situation here extant.Garfink's attorney, James E. Carbine, said his client is extraordinarily relieved.The attorney for the condominium council, though, said the ruling opens up a Pandora's box.I'm concerned that while the majority opinion said it's limited to a specific case, it's just going to be a springboard for unit owners to bypass the board of directors and make exterior changes, said John M. Oliveri, who said he represents several condominium councils.He said he will ask the court to reconsider.Three dissenters on the Court of Appeals agreed with Oliveri. In an opinion authored by Judge Alan M. Wilner, they worried that the majority had been so busy trying to avoid forcing Garfink to remove the vent that it made bad law. Among other concerns, Wilner wrote that the ruling is more ambiguous than the majority intended and that it could affect every condominium in Maryland, as well as other easements.Garfink owned her house - the former model home in The Cloisters at Charles - since 1991, but only discovered the venting problem when her old dryer stopped working. The vendor refused to install her new dryer, saying the ventilation system presented a fire hazard.All the other houses in the development had dryers that vented outside of the house, but the builder simply forgot to install an outside vent on the model home, according to the decision.After Garfink had the venting system rerouted - without consulting the Council of Unit Owners - it wound up blowing steam in the direction of her neighbor's front door, and he complained to the council.

Garfink owned her house - the former model home in The Cloisters at Charles - since 1991, but only discovered the venting problem when her old dryer stopped working. The vendor refused to install her new dryer, saying the ventilation system presented a fire hazard.

CATHELL: UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCEWHAT THE COURT HELDCase:Garfink v. The Cloisters at Charles, CA No. 79, Sept. Term 2005. Reported. Opinion by Cathell, J.; dissent by Wilner, J. Filed April 13, 2006.Issues:Did the lower court err in (1) holding that easement law does not apply to easements granted in condominium documents; (2) affirming that a maintenance easement did not allow petitioner to create an exterior dryer vent without the council's approval; or (3) affirming that petitioner had to get respondent's prior approval before relocating the vent?Holding:Yes; reversed and remanded. Traditional easement law does apply to condominiums. Petitioner's new installation of an exterior dryer vent constituted a repair, which she is permitted to do without consulting the condominium council.Counsel:James E. Carbine for appellant; John M. Oliveri for appellee.

Author: Caryn Tamber