Background
Joan Young, a unit owner in Cottage Grove Condominium Association, received a courtesy notice regarding her driveway condition in February 2024. She subsequently demanded six documents from the association, including an opinion letter from the association’s attorney, invoices, and the contract between the association and its property management company. The association provided most requested documents via email but allowed Young to inspect the management contract only during an in-person meeting on May 21, 2024. Dissatisfied with this arrangement, Young filed suit on July 30, 2024, seeking to compel production of the contract. The trial court ruled that condominium associations are not required to provide property management contracts to unit owners under the Tennessee Condominium Act.
Young raised additional contentions before the trial court, including arguments that the broader Tennessee Nonprofit Corporations Act applied and that the management contract constituted a financial record under the Condominium Act. She also filed multiple motions alleging judicial bias and moved to recuse the chancellor. The trial court addressed each motion and ultimately dismissed the case with prejudice on June 3, 2025. Young appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Tennessee Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision on multiple grounds. First, the court held that the Tennessee Condominium Act, not the broader Nonprofit Corporations Act, governs condominium associations. The court relied on the principle that when a specific statute addresses a particular subject matter and a general statute could also apply, the specific statute takes precedence. The association’s governing documents explicitly subjected it to the Condominium Act, reinforcing this analysis.
Second, the court examined Tennessee Code Annotated § 66-27-503, which enumerates the specific records condominium associations must provide to unit owners upon request. This list includes financial statements, budgets, meeting minutes, insurance information, and litigation status—but does not include property management contracts. The court rejected Young’s argument that the contract qualified as an “other record” under § 66-27-417, finding that the statute’s language must be interpreted according to its plain meaning and without forced expansions. The court further noted that even if “other records” could theoretically extend to management contracts, the association had already complied with the Condominium Act and its bylaws by allowing Young to inspect the contract in person.
Third, the court held that Young was not entitled to penalty fees or costs under § 66-27-505 because no violation of the Condominium Act occurred. The court also noted that Young, as a pro se litigant, could not recover attorney fees under § 66-27-211. Finally, the court reviewed Young’s recusal motions under de novo review and determined that she failed to establish any basis for recusal, finding that her complaints stemmed from disagreements with the trial court’s discretionary rulings made during litigation rather than from any extrajudicial bias.
Key Takeaways
- The Tennessee Condominium Act specifically governs condominium associations and takes precedence over the general Nonprofit Corporations Act when both statutes could apply.
- Property management contracts are not among the records Tennessee condominium associations must disclose to unit owners, despite the broad disclosure requirements for financial and operational records.
- Unit owners retain the right to inspect association records during business hours, but inspection rights do not necessarily include the right to obtain copies of contracts outside the statutory enumeration.
- Pro se litigants must comply with the same procedural rules and burden of proof as represented parties, including the requirement to preserve arguments at trial to raise them on appeal.
Why It Matters
This decision establishes clear boundaries on unit owner rights to access condominium association records in Tennessee. While the Condominium Act imposes substantial transparency obligations—requiring associations to produce detailed financial statements, budgets, meeting minutes, and other operational documents—property management contracts fall outside these mandatory disclosures. This protects associations’ contractual relationships and commercial confidentiality while still ensuring significant transparency regarding finances and governance. The ruling will guide condominium operators and unit owners in understanding their respective obligations and rights.
The decision also reinforces procedural requirements for litigants, including the principle that arguments not raised at trial are waived on appeal and that allegations of judicial bias must be based on extrajudicial sources rather than disagreement with discretionary rulings. This raises the bar for future recusal challenges in condominium-related disputes, protecting judicial efficiency while maintaining safeguards against genuine bias.