Can condominium unit owners refuse to pay equal assessments for shared community areas because their neighbors’ homes benefit more? In Bogot v. Haverford Homeowners Association, 2026 IL App (1st) 250080, the Illinois Appellate Court said no — and held that an Illinois master association that governs both condominiums and single-family homes may assess all owners equally under the Illinois Condominium Property Act, 765 ILCS 605/1 et seq.
When a community is composed of both condominium units and detached single-family homes, there may be questions about how assessments are to be paid and the association’s corporate status. The Illinois appellate court’s decision in Bogot rejected a class of condominium owners’ effort to escape equal assessments for a shared community area and held that an association governing both condominiums and detached homes is a “master association” governed by the Condominium Property Act, despite what the declaration calls itself. This blog article analyzes the Bogot decision and provides practical guidance for Illinois community associations.
Background: How the Illinois Master Association Condominium Dispute Arose
The dispute arose out of a planned development comprising 50 detached homes, a 48-unit condominium building, and shared community areas. The community declaration was recorded in 2005, and the association was formed as a not-for-profit corporation. Notably, the declaration expressly stated that the association was not intended to be a “master association” under the Illinois Condominium Property Act or a “common interest community association” under the Code of Civil Procedure (the association was formed prior to the adoption of the Illinois Common Interest Community Association Act).
The homeowners association charged detached homeowners for expenses unique to their homes, such as snow removal from private roads, but split the cost of maintaining and landscaping the community area equally among all 98 units. With 48 condominium units and 50 homes, the condominium owners collectively paid 49% of the community-area assessments, even though roughly 87% of the community area was the detached homes’ homeowner “yards” and only 13% was the condominium building’s backyard.
Two condominium owners sued on behalf of a class, arguing that (1) the assessment covenant did not run with the land, (2) the equal assessments were unconscionable, (3) the board breached its fiduciary duty by misappropriating condominium owners’ funds for homeowner expenses, and (4) the association’s structure did not comply with the Common Interest Community Association Act. The circuit court dismissed each claim, and the plaintiffs appealed.
How the Illinois Appellate Court’s Analyzed the Condominium Dispute
The appellate court rejected all four arguments and affirmed the circuit court in full.
-
The Assessment Covenant Runs With the Land
A covenant binds subsequent owners only if it runs with the land, which requires intent, privity of estate, and that the covenant touch and concern the land. Only the last element was disputed. A covenant touches and concerns the land if it affects the property’s use, value, and enjoyment, and Illinois courts have long recognized that assessments for the repair of common areas further those interests.
The plaintiffs argued that the covenant did not touch and concern the land because they could not realistically enjoy the “yards” surrounding their neighbors’ homes. The court was unpersuaded. The inquiry concerns the covenant’s relationship to the land, not whether an owner chooses to use it. Because the covenant required payment for the upkeep of community land, the plaintiffs had a right to its use. It affected the land’s use, value, and enjoyment, whether or not they ever set foot in a particular area.
-
Equal Assessments Are Not Unconscionable
The court found that the declaration plainly stated that assessments were divided equally per dwelling unit, and the plaintiffs never alleged any circumstance that kept them from learning that formula before they bought. The terms were not substantively unconscionable either, because every unit owner had an equal right to the community area, and equal payment for an equal right is not oppressive.
-
Breach of Fiduciary Duty Must Be Brought Derivatively
The plaintiffs alleged that the board misused common assessments and reserve funds to cover homeowner expenses. The court held that misappropriation of an association’s funds is an injury to the association itself, so the claim had to be brought as a derivative action rather than a direct one. Because the plaintiffs sued as individuals, they lacked standing.
-
A Mixed Condo–Homeowner Association Is a Master Association Under Illinois Law
The plaintiffs’ last argued that, after the Common Interest Community Association Act took effect in 2010, the association could no longer govern both condominiums and detached homes unless it was organized as a master association. Hence, the condominiums had to be severed. The court disagreed and clarified how the two statutes fit together. Under the Illinois Condominium Property Act, a corporation that exercises powers on behalf of, or for the benefit of, condominium owners is a master association. The Common Interest Community Association Act, by contrast, applies to common interest communities, which do not include master associations.
Because the association assessed condominium owners for maintenance of the community area, including the condominium building’s backyard, it fell squarely within the statutory definition of a master association. Its self-description as “not” a master association did not change the result. A declaration controls only to the extent it does not conflict with the Illinois Condominium Property Act, and courts must interpret governing documents to conform to the law. The association was therefore a master association governed by the Illinois Condominium Property Act, and the condominiums did not need to be severed.
Key Takeaways and Practical Guidance for Illinois Community Associations
Bogot offers several lessons for Illinois community associations:
- Assessment covenants tied to common-area upkeep generally run with the land, even where an owner does not use every portion of the common area.
- Equal assessments are enforceable when owners share an equal right to the common area. A more favorable allocation elsewhere does not make an equal split unconscionable.
- Claims over the misuse of association funds belong to the association and must be pursued derivatively, not by individual owners.
- Boards of mixed communities should work with legal counsel to confirm whether the association is a master association under the Illinois Condominium Property Act or a common interest community under the Illinois Common Interest Community Association Act, and to align operations with that classification. Because labels do not control, counsel should review any declaration that disclaims master-association status and correct inconsistencies with the statutes.
Conclusion
The Illinois Appellate Court’s decision in Bogot v. Haverford Homeowners Association can assist Illinois community associations that govern both condominiums and single-family homes. If your Illinois community association exercises powers for the benefit of condominium owners, it may be a master association under the Illinois Condominium Property Act even if the declaration says otherwise. The attorneys at Hirzel Law, PLC are experienced community association attorneys who can assess your association’s structure, review and amend governing documents, and defend associations in assessment and governance disputes.
