Usually not, under this decision. In November 2024, the Appeals Court held that a condominium association did not have to pay for accessibility changes to a patio used only by a unit owner with a disability, because the association is not the “owner” the statute makes responsible for the cost. This is a published Appeals Court decision and binding statewide. It was a loss for the unit owner, and it changes how condo owners should approach these requests.
What happened
The unit owner lived in a 108-unit condominium in Plymouth from 2000 until her death in 2021. Patios were common area owned jointly by all unit owners, but each unit had the exclusive right to use its adjacent patio. A disability affected her mobility and made it hard to reach her split-level patio. The association approved three of her four requests for changes, and two were built. When the association planned to replace the split-level patios with single-level ones, she asked to keep hers, with raised steps at the doors. After she filed a federal housing complaint, the association agreed she could keep her patio and that it would install the raised steps at her expense. She refused, insisting the association pay. She then sued under G.L. c. 151B, and after her death her estate continued the case. The Superior Court ruled for the association.
What the court decided
In Geezil v. White Cliffs Condominium Four Association, 105 Mass. App. Ct. 103 (2024), the Appeals Court affirmed summary judgment for the association and its codefendants.
The statute. Under G.L. c. 151B, § 4 (7A) (1), refusing to let a person with a disability make reasonable modifications to their home at their own expense is discrimination. The court used the statute’s older word, “handicap,” which the Legislature has since replaced with “disability,” effective June 12, 2026. St. 2026, c. 102, §§ 263-276. In three kinds of housing, the cost shifts: publicly assisted housing, multiple dwelling housing of ten or more units, and contiguously located housing of ten or more units. There, the modification is at the expense of “the owner or other person having the right of ownership.” The estate argued the association was that owner and that the complex was contiguously located housing. It needed to win both points. It lost both.
The association is not the owner. The unit owners own their units individually and the common areas together. The association manages the property; it does not own it. The court noted that the Legislature listed “any organization of unit owners in a condominium” among those barred from discriminating, but left associations out of the clause that shifts the cost. The court would not add them. It declined to follow a 2010 decision of the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination that had treated a condominium trust as an owner, holding that agency deference cannot override the plain words of the statute.
Not contiguously located housing. Under G.L. c. 151B, § 1 (12), that term covers housing which “is offered for sale, lease or rental” by someone who owns or controlled the sale of ten or more units on contiguous land. The unit owner’s home was not on the market when she asked for the changes. The court held that the present tense matters, so the developer’s sale of units years earlier did not count.
The estate’s retaliation claim, based on the association starting work on her patio two days after the federal agency found no probable cause, was waived because the appeal did not develop any legal argument on it.
What this means for you
If you own a condo and need accessibility changes, this decision means you will likely pay for them yourself, even when the work is on common area that only you use. The association still cannot refuse to let you make reasonable modifications at your own expense, and it must make reasonable accommodations in its rules and policies when you need them to use and enjoy your home.
The honest lesson from this case is about strategy. The association here agreed to let the unit owner keep her patio and add the steps if she paid. Holding out for the association to pay ended in a loss on every claim. Getting the change approved in writing, at your expense, may be the faster route to a home you can use.
Renters stand in a different place. If you rent in multiple dwelling housing of ten or more units, the statute puts the cost of reasonable modifications on the owner, subject to limits such as undue hardship.
What to do now
- Make your request to the association in writing, describe the change, and explain how it relates to your disability.
- Ask for written approval of the change at your expense if the association will not pay.
- Keep every response, meeting notice and project plan that affects your unit or patio.
- If the association refuses to let you make a reasonable change, or punishes you for asking, get legal advice promptly.
If this is your situation, call Doubleday Law at (617) 575-2006 or tell us what happened. Deadlines for discrimination and employment claims can be short.
