A recent Appellate Division offers important guidance for condominium associations and unit owners, clarifying when a unit owner may step in to make repairs to a common element after an association refuses to act. 

In that unpublished case, Ronald Schecter v. Society Hill East Condominium Association, Inc., Docket No. A-2687-23 (October 2025), the plaintiff owned a condominium unit. Over a four-year period, the plaintiff’s water supply line, located in a bathroom adjacent to an exterior wall, frequently froze during cold weather, despite his attempts to warm and insulate the pipe. The unit owner repeatedly asked the condo association to investigate and fix the problem, but was denied. 

Although the association acknowledged that it was responsible for the space between the unit’s sheetrock and the exterior wall, it claimed that it had no legal duty to install insulation in that area. The association also maintained that the pipe itself was not a common element and was concerned that fixing the issue would set a precedent for other unit owners to request the same assistance. The unit owner repaired the issue on his own and filed a small claims complaint seeking $2,109.87 in damages. The trial court awarded the unit owner $1,642, finding that although the pipe was not a common element, the freezing issue stemmed from the lack of insulation in the wall, which was a common element. The association appealed.  

The Appellate Division upheld the trial court’s decision. The Court reaffirmed that a unit owner can bring an action for damages against an association when a defect in a common element causes damage to a unit, and here the association’s failure to insulate the interior wall of the bathroom, which was a common element, resulted in the plaintiff’s damages. The Court also found that even though the association was not negligent, the trial court’s judgement was based on a breach of the governing documents, and there was enough testimony even without an expert to support the conclusion that the unit-owner’s repairs were needed to prevent further freezing. 

The Court also reasoned that although N.J.S.A. 46:8B-18 prohibits individual unit owners from repairing or altering common elements, the Court has previously held that modifications of common elements that do not have a substantial impact on the condominium property as a whole or otherwise impact other unit owners are not subject to this prohibition. The Court rejected the association’s argument that public policy precluded unit owners from conducting their own repairs of common elements and then seeking reimbursement, particularly when, as here, the association ignores a unit-owner’s request for significant periods and refuses to fix the issue. Instead, the Court held that it would be unreasonable to prohibit a unit owner from fixing an issue on their own. Finally, although the unit-owner’s invoice for the work was not itemized, the Court noted that a plaintiff can satisfy their burden of proving damages as long as they prove their damages with sufficient certainty to permit the factfinder to “make a fair and reasonable estimate.”