Q. My wife and I own a condominium unit and the board of my condominium association is taking the position that my wife’s mother is not an allowed occupant of our unit because our association bylaws were amended a few years ago to only allow “immediate family” to occupy a unit. Does a mother qualify as an immediate family member? A. The Condominium Act does not address occupancy standards of a condo, therefore, the language of an association’s declaration and bylaws will control the definition of immediate family. If the term immediate family is specifically defined to limit occupancy to certain individuals, that definition will control and be binding unless it violates a constructional right; however, if the term immediate family is not specifically defined in the declaration or bylaws, the definition of immediate family commonly accepted for the interpretation and enforcement of condominium instruments includes a spouse, child, stepchild, sibling, parent, grandparent or grandchild. Q. I am a unit owner in a large condominium association. Our community is having difficulty finding unit owners to serve as board members. What happens if a condominium association cannot find any unit owners willing to serve as board members? A. If less than the required number of unit owners are willing to serve as directors, while not ideal, under the Illinois Not-for-Profit Corporation Act, the association board may continue to function without the required number of directors. However, if no unit owners are willing to serve on the board, the condo association won’t be able to conduct basic business, such as purchasing required insurance on the building, maintaining, repairing or replacing the common elements and/or paying utility bills. If this situation persists, any unit owner or lender could file suit to have the court appoint a receiver to administer the association, which costs money in receiver fees, thereby increasing the costs to administer the association and thus, assessments. Important case law update On Dec. 3, 2024, a federal court ruling issued a nationwide injunction for compliance of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA), a federal law that broadly imposes certain reporting requirements for all reporting entities by Jan. 1, 2025, which includes condominium and community associations and co-ops. The case, Texas Top Cop Shop, Inc., et al. v. Merrick Garland, et al., Case No. 4:24-CV-478 (E.D. Tex.), was brought by six separate plaintiffs — one private individual and five entities — seeking to challenge the CTA as unconstitutional and thus unenforceable. In the 79-page decision, a U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Texas found that the CTA “appears likely unconstitutional” and issued a nationwide injunction to postpone the CTA reporting deadline until the case could be heard. Based on this ruling, the CTA’s reporting requirements, including the Jan. 1 initial filing deadline, are suspended and not in effect for all reporting companies, including condominium and community associations and co-ops. However, the ruling does not permanently eliminate the CTA and its reporting requirements. It appears likely that the ruling will be appealed, and the injunction blocking the enforcement of the CTA is temporary “pending further order of the Court.” Got a question for the Condo Adviser? Email [email protected].