Vitorino America (America), a condominium unit owner, sued the Sunspray Condominium Association (Association) and its Board of Directors, alleging they failed to enforce the condominium’s smoking ban. America appealed the Superior Court’s dismissal of his smoking-ban related claims.

The court affirmed the judgment, addressing three main points:

• Denial of Second Motion to Amend: The court found no abuse of discretion in denying America’s motion to file a second amended complaint. The original complaint had already been amended once, and the remaining election-related claims were ready to proceed. Additionally, any potential nuisance claims could be filed separately.
• Availability of Derivative Action: The court held that America did not have the right to bring a shareholder derivative action on behalf of the Association. Maine statutory law (Maine Condominium Act and Maine Nonprofit Corporation Act) does not expressly provide for derivative actions for condominium associations or nonprofit corporations, and the court would not infer such authorization.
• Sufficiency of Individual Smoking-Ban Claims: The court agreed with the trial court’s dismissal of America’s individual claims related to the smoking ban based on two reasons:
  • Business Judgment Rule: The court applied the business judgment rule, finding that America’s complaint alleged a disagreement over the method of enforcing the smoking ban, rather than an absolute refusal to enforce it, which would be considered bad faith. The facts presented did not demonstrate bad faith sufficient to overcome the rule’s protection.
  • Requirement for Cognizable Injury: America failed to allege a legally cognizable individual injury. His claim that he “cannot enter or leave his unit without passing the exhaust of a unit in which tobacco is being smoked” was deemed insufficient without specific details of exposure and the resulting physical injury or illness. The court stated that merely being “adversely affected” or an “aggrieved unit owner” requires a particularized injury.

Therefore, the claims for breach of fiduciary duty, violation of the MCA, violation of the MNCA, breach of contract, and negligence were all properly dismissed due to the application of the business judgment rule and the lack of a cognizable injury.

Summary by Gemini