A dispute over parking space allocation and access to records at a condominium complex has resulted in a legal decision upholding the actions of the homeowners association. The case addresses whether a unit owner is entitled to more than one designated parking spot and whether the association complied with its obligations regarding document inspection and alternative dispute resolution.
George Dands filed an appeal in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, after two summary judgment orders were entered in favor of Madrid Condominium Association, Inc., a New Jersey nonprofit corporation. The appeal was submitted on January 28, 2026, and decided on April 6, 2026.
According to court documents, Dands purchased his condominium unit in 2006 under a Deed that subjected him to “the conditions, restrictions, covenants and agreements set forth in the Master Deed… including the By-Laws of the [HOA].” These governing documents allowed each unit one designated parking spot. Initially, when additional spaces were available, the homeowners association did not strictly enforce this policy. However, as occupancy increased by 2012, enforcement became stricter. Dands asserted he was entitled to an extra parking space beyond what was permitted by the Master Deed and By-Laws.
In response to growing occupancy and concerns about fairness among residents, the association numbered all parking spaces in 2014 so that each residential unit had one assigned spot. Commercial units received three spaces each and office units five spaces each. An email was sent to all residents reiterating this policy.
Dands’ attorney argued in 2017 that changes to the parking policy prevented Dands from realizing “the full economic value of his unit,” requesting a return to previous leniency so guests could use extra spots instead of street parking. In subsequent years, Dands also sought inspection of various HOA documents covering assessments and financial records from 2012 through 2019. The HOA responded by indicating it would forward these requests to its attorney but noted that Dands had not paid required assessments or responded to communications about payment.
In 2023, Dands filed a complaint against Madrid Condominium Association alleging violation of the Master Deed for denying him a second parking spot; failure to provide accounting records for inspection; and failure to resolve disputes through alternative dispute resolution (ADR). The HOA countered by filing an assessment lien against Dands for unpaid dues totaling $17,579.19 and pursued a counterclaim for non-payment along with attorney’s fees.
The trial court initially denied summary judgment for the HOA on November 20, 2023, ordering both parties into ADR regarding the parking issue while granting summary judgment on unpaid assessments pending proof hearing for damages calculation. After further filings—including an amended complaint from Dands—the court granted summary judgment for the HOA on May 24, 2024 but required it to allow Dands access to its records.
Following a proof hearing in June 2024, default judgment was entered against Dands for $16,180.23: $6,659.26 in dues and late fees; $5,620.97 in attorney’s fees calculated at hearing; plus $3,900 in additional attorney’s fees for June proceedings as adjusted by the court.
Dands appealed these rulings contending errors in granting summary judgment dismissing his claims and entering default judgment on unpaid assessments. On review de novo—the same standard used by trial courts—the appellate panel found no factual evidence presented by Dands sufficient to overturn summary judgment: “As the owner of one unit,” they wrote referencing Section 5.02 of the Master Deed which provides “[o]ne (1) designated parking space for each residential unit… .” They concluded that “the HOA was clearly within its rights” enforcing this restriction.
Regarding document inspection claims (count two), although summary judgment favored the HOA procedurally because plaintiff did not pursue inspection after being contacted about scheduling it—”plaintiff has never contacted the HOA regarding an inspection”—the court still ordered records be made available.
On ADR issues (count three), state law requires associations provide fair procedures as alternatives to litigation but does not preclude lawsuits where there is legitimate basis under bylaws or deeds: “so long as…a legitimate basis…to file suit,” litigation may proceed without first using ADR according to cited precedent. While both parties agreed ADR was appropriate after initial motions were denied—and were ordered into such proceedings—Dands later amended his complaint specifically asking that litigation continue rather than be removed back into ADR: “preventing [the HOA] from removing this matter to a forum for [ADR].”
Finally addressing counterclaims for unpaid assessments and attorney’s fees totaling $9,520.97—which Dands called unreasonable—the appellate panel found no genuine issue remained as detailed accounting spreadsheets showed correct balances owed per plaintiff’s own admissions at hearing: “plaintiff conceded he owed monies…and that [the spreadsheet] correctly reflected his payments.” The trial judge also reduced excessive or unrelated fee requests before awarding counsel fees following established legal standards.
The orders granting summary judgment for Madrid Condominium Association are affirmed. George Dands represented himself; Norman W. Briggs and Maria D. Senico appeared on behalf of Madrid Condominium Association through Briggs Law Office LLC. The case is identified as A-3872-23.
Source: A387223_Dands_v_Madrid_Condominium_Association_Inc_Opinion_New_Jersey_Superior_Court_of_Appeals.pdf
