Removing Aging Fitness-Center Amenities Was Not an “Improvement”
MEEB secured a judgment in favor of an Association after a challenge was made to the Board’s authority to renovate the condominium’s existing fitness center. The Middlesex Superior Court held that removing the sauna, steam room, and showers as part of the project constituted a repair and restoration - not an “improvement” requiring a unit-owner vote under M.G.L. c. 183A, § 18.
The fitness center was outdated, with reports of mold and mildew; the steam room had been inoperable for approximately twenty-four years, and the sauna was used only sparingly. Does this sound familiar? The Board decided rather than spending thousands of dollars to repair the facilities it made more sense to remove them.
WHY THE COURT RULED FOR THE ASSOCIATION
The court focused on whether the work restored an existing common area or permanently added to or expanded it. Here, the project did not create a new fitness center. Instead, it returned the existing facility to a safer, more modern condition. Removing the sauna, steam room, and showers increased the usable exercise area but did not expand the fitness center’s total square footage. The court also explained that trustees need not restore every common-area feature to its exact prior condition to avoid having the work classified as an improvement.
The court allowed the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and denied the owner’s cross motion. It separately held that the claims seeking an owner vote and an injunction were moot because the project was substantially complete. Judgment dismissing the complaint was entered on October 6, 2026.
TAKEAWAY FOR CONDOMINIUM BOARDS
This decision illustrates that a substantial modernization project can remain a repair or restoration even when it removes existing amenities or introduces updated features. The distinction turns on the project’s substance, not simply whether the finished space looks different. Boards considering similar work should document existing conditions and review the proposed scope, governing documents, and applicable law with counsel before proceeding. This trial-court ruling is fact-specific; it does not eliminate owner-vote requirements for projects that qualify as improvements. Here is a link to the decision in the case which was handled by Attorney Dawn McDonald.
If you have any questions regarding what constitutes an improvement, please contact Dawn directly at dmcdonald@meeb.com, or any MEEB Attorney at law@meeb.com.