Within the field of community association operations few words are as troublesome as the word precedent except, of course, the words ice dams in New England.  Much has been written on the latter and the solutions, though expensive, are well known.  The issue of precedent seems, however, to constantly nag at board members, managers and attorneys.  Let me suggest that this should not be the case. 

            Though our appellate level courts have yet to speak to the issue, the consistent trend across the country is that board decisions are to be judged by the business judgment rule.  Simply stated, so long as a board proceeds in good faith, within the scope of their authority and with honest purpose a court will not second guess them.  Thus, a board need not always decide the same or similar things in the same way.  Rather, it can take into account all the circumstances and facts relevant to a particular matter and make a decision which it finds is appropriate at that time. 

            Does this mean that identical situations which occur within a short time frame should be treated the same?  Though not mandated under the business judgment rule, boards would be well served to do so.  Aside from concerns whether a court will reverse a decision, boards must consider the message their decisions send to the community.  Flip-flopping or different treatment of different owners under similar circumstances create an impression of arbitrary and capricious action.  Such a perception should be avoided.  However, it is rare, indeed that duplicate circumstances will constantly arise.  Rather, people and life are constantly changing.  Boards, too, must and should be prepared to change along with their communities and avoid the cement block mentality that follows the speaking of the word "precedent".