Condominium Board Discretion is Not Absolute

A recent decision from the Massachusetts Land Court serves as an important reminder that while condominium boards are afforded broad discretion, that discretion is not without limits.

In Feldman v. Sanctuary Condominium Association, the Land Court held that a condominium board failed to act in good faith and in the exercise of its honest judgment when it denied a unit owner’s request to wall up an exterior kitchen door at her own expense. The Court remanded the matter to the board with instructions to allow the work, subject to reasonable protective conditions.

For condominium trustees, unit owners, and practitioners advising associations, the case provides useful guidance on judicial review of board decisions—particularly where governing documents confer discretionary authority.

The Background: A 39-Year Dispute

In 1986, Debra Feldman agreed to purchase a unit in the Sanctuary Condominium in Salem. During construction of her eventual unit at 13 Aurora Lane (Unit 94D), she noticed a single exterior kitchen door not present in similarly designed units. She asked the developer to remove it. The developer declined but told her she could seek approval from the condominium board after closing. She closed in 1987.

Over the next several decades, Feldman made multiple attempts to obtain permission from the board of trustees of the Sanctuary Condominium Association to eliminate the kitchen exit. The proposal (referred to in the decision as the “Work”) would be completed at her sole expense.

In 2022, the board formally denied the request. In 2024, Feldman—proceeding pro se—filed suit. Most claims were dismissed on summary judgment, but one survived: whether the board’s denial violated § 9(b) of the condominium’s master deed.

After trial in November 2025, the Land Court ruled in Feldman’s favor.

The Court’s Reasoning: “Arbitrary and Not Credible”

The core of the case rested on whether the Board acted properly under the Condominium’s Master Deed when it denied Ms. Feldman’s request. Judge Vhay’s ruling was a stinging rebuke of the Board’s conduct. The court found that the Board’s 2022 denial failed every legal test for the following reasons:

No Financial Impact: The proposed work would cost the Association $0. In fact, removing the door would save the Association money on future maintenance and reduce the risk of liability for rot, mold, and water damage.
Inconsistency: The Board had previously allowed more structurally intrusive alterations to other units in the complex, making the denial for 13 Aurora appear arbitrary.
Shifting Excuses: In its initial denial letter, the Board provided only one factually unsupported reason. By the time the case reached trial, they offered four new unsupported excuses.
Lack of Good Faith: The court noted the Board “went through the motions” of asking for construction details but failed to articulate a single substantiated reason why denying the work benefited the Association.

The Land Court didn’t just overturn the denial; it took the rare step of remanding the case to the Board with instructions to allow the work. While the Board can impose reasonable conditions to ensure the construction is done properly and at no cost to the Association, they can no longer say “no” to the project itself.

Key Takeaways for Condo Owners and Boards

This case clarifies the boundaries of “Business Judgment” in the context of Massachusetts condominium law.

Boards Are Not Untouchable: While courts generally defer to the “business judgment” of a board, that deference ends when a decision is arbitrary, lacks a basis in fact, or is made in bad faith.

Consistency is King: If a board allows one owner to modify a common element, it must have a very strong, documented reason for denying a similar request from another owner.

The “Good of the Association” Standard: A board must be able to articulate how their decision actually furthers the legitimate purposes of the condominium. Personal preference or “because we said so” is not a legal defense.