Jiang v. Haslet Park Homeowners Association - HOA Window Installation Dispute

IN THE C OUR T O F CHANCER Y OF THE ST A TE OF DELA W ARE KUN JI ANG, Plainti ff, v. HASLET PARK HOMEOWNE RS ASSOC IAT ION and M ASTRI ANA PROPE RTY MANAGEM ENT, INC., Defen dant s. HASLET PARK HOMEOWNE RS ASSOC IAT ION, I NC., Count erc laim P lai ntiff, v. KUN JI ANG, Counter claim Def end ant.)))))))))))))))))) C.A. No. 2 023 - 0780 - LM Final R ep ort: Febru ary 6, 202 6 Date S ubm itte d: Oc tober 13, 2025 POST - TRI AL FINAL REPOR T Kun Jia ng, Newar k, DE; Pro Se P lain tiff/Cou nterc laim D efendant. Kenne th M. Doss, CAS SARI NO, CHRIS TMAN SHA LK RANSOM & DOSS P. A., Wilm ingto n, DE; Attor ney for De fend ant Haslet P ark Hom eowner s Associa tion Meliss a L. Rhoads, TIGHE & COTRELL, P.A., Wilming ton, DE; Attor ney for Defenda nt M astriana Pro perty Manage ment Company Rober t J. Va lihura, Jr., Care n Syd nor, MORTON, VALIHURA & ZERBATO, LLC, Greenv ille, DE; Attorn eys for Counterc laim Pl ain tiff Hasl et Park Homeow ners Assoc iation, I nc MITCHELL, M.

This m atter arise s from a disp ute betwe en home owner K un Jiang, the Hasle t Park Condomini um Asso ciati on, an d Mastr iana Prope rt y Manage men t concerning Mr. Jiang ’ s window repl acem ent a nd hi s subse quent c halle nges to the 2023 B o ard elec tion. Mr. Jia ng a r gues tha t the B oard and the m anag eme nt com pany b reach ed their fiduciary dut y by not approving his windo ws and acte d beyond th eir authorit y by im posi ng moneta ry fines and by adopting a R esolu tion to recoup legal fees shor tly af ter he fi led suit a nd expre ssed intere st in ser ving on t he B oa rd. The Assoc iat ion co ntends that Mr. Jiang viol ated the G overnin g D ocume nts by repla cin g his wi ndows without p rior approva l. For the rea sons ex plained be low, judgme nt shoul d be entered i n favor of M astr iana, par tially i n favor of M r. Jia ng, and parti ally in fav or of the Ha sle t Park C ond omin ium Assoc iatio n. This i s my Final R eport. I. FACT UAL BA CKGRO UND 1 This m atter ari ses fr om the eve nts w ithi n the H asle t Park comm unity, a cond omin ium de velop men t in Newa rk, De lawar e. 2 Kun Jia ng (“Jia ng” or “Plaintiff”) ow ns the un it loca ted at 17 Cor nwal lis Sq uare, w hich he purc hased o n 1 The facts in this repor t reflect my findings based on t he record devel oped at the two -day trial held on Sep tember 9, 2 025, and September 10, 2025. I grant the evidence the weight and credibility I find it deserves. Citations to the transcript will be in the form of “Tr. _.” Citations to the Docket are cited in the for m of “D.I. _”. Depos ition transcript s are cited as “[Last Name] Dep. Tr. _.” The parties submitted joint exhib its numbered 1 –76. Citations to the joint ex hibits are in the for m of “JX _.” 2 D.I. 1 at 2.

2 July 9, 2018. 3 The commu nit y is gover ned by a C ounc il (“Counci l”) and ma nage d by Mas triana Pr operty M anage ment, I nc. (“Mas tria na”) purs uant to a P r opert y M anagemen t A greeme nt (“Mana gement Agreem ent”). 4 In late Sep tem ber 2 022, Mr. Jiang rep laced the windows on the s econd - story of the front si de of hi s un it. 5 T he new win dow s diff ere d from his previo us w indows in that t hey ope ned ver tically ra ther t han horizo ntal ly. 6 The new windows a lso conta ined d ecor ati ve munt ins. 7 Shortly a fter t he wind ows were ins tall ed, two memb ers of the C oun cil not iced the new w indow s whil e out on a walk. 8 On Oct ober 10, 2022, actin g at the C ounc il’s dir ec tion, Ma str iana se nt Mr. Jian g a le tter notif ying him tha t the insta llation v iola ted the Code of R egulatio ns of Hasle t Par k Cond omin ium A ssoc iati on (“As soci atio n” or “ Hasle t Park”), which requir es owner s to obta in pr ior wri tten approv al from the Council be fore making any 3 Id. 4 D.I. 258 at 4. T he Associatio n is the co mmon - interest commu nity and legal en tity composed of all unit owners. The Associatio n acts through its elected governing body, which the Governing D ocuments r efer to as the “Council” and w hich the parties and witnesses at times refer to as the “Bo ard.” For clarity, this Rep ort uses “Council” and “Board” intercha ngeably to descri be the Association’s gove rning body, while “Association” refers to the collective memb ership and lega l entity itself. 5 D.I. 260 at 3; Pl. Ans wers to Def. Haslet Park Homeowners As s’n’s Interrogs. at 10 – 11 (D.I. 260, Ex. E). 6 JX 23 at 12–13. 7 D.I. 245 at 3. 8 Tr. 399:14–20; Tr. 43 9:16–440:5.

3 struc tura l mod ificat ions or altera tions affec ting a unit. 9 The lette r also not ified M r. Jian g tha t the windo ws wer e not the s ame as the pr ior win dows an d diff er ed from other un its in the nei ghb orho od. 10 On Octo ber 13, 2022, Mr. Jiang conta ct ed Jo n Mastr iana an d conf irme d receipt of the lett er. 11 He sou ght c larific ation on wh at wa s consi dered a “s truct ura l change” a nd no ted he did not realize wi ndows were cons idered a struc tural c han ge. 12 He re que sted clarif icatio n and t o hear fr om the B oard. 13 Mr. Jiang continu ed his effor ts to disc uss the win dow s and the viol ation not ice wi th th e Hasle t Park Board (“Board”). 14 Howe ver, by Oc tober 1 5, 202 2, the Ass ociat ion ha d shif ted dec isivel y to atto rney - driven handling and refer red the mat ter to the Associati on’s le gal coun sel. 15 The As soc iati on inf ormed Mr. Jia ng that its cou nsel w ould com mu nicat e 9 JX 8. 10 Id. 11 JX 9 at 2–3. 12 Id. 13 Id. 14 See gener ally JX 1 4 (Mr. Jiang e mailed Ma striana and B en jamin Hale at least twice after October 18, 2022 to discuss the win dows and violati on notice). 15 JX 9 at 1 (email corresponde nce indicati ng the matter wo uld be referre d to the Association’s attorney); JX 10 at 1; JX 61 at 8 (the minute s from October 18, 2022 Board meeting provide a su mmary of the issue with Mr. Jiang and note that the matter ha s been turned over to legal co unsel.); Tr. 402:1 0–403:15.

4 only w ith his a ttor ney and re quired a ll fu ture corre spo nde nce to occur on a n at torne y - to - at torne y basi s. 16 On Oc tobe r 16, 2 022, Benjam in Hale esca late d the dispu te to M astr iana’ s mana geme nt, Jea nne Schepe r, an d othe rs. 17 Two da ys late r, on Octo ber 18, 2022, commun ications show tha t Benjam in Hale be lieved the w indow i nstall ation invaded the c ondominiu m ’s comm on eleme nts be cause i t occur red with out requir ed prior approv al and vie wed it a s a clear vi olation o f the pr oper ty c ontr olle d by t he A ssocia tion. 18 By Novem ber 16, 2022, the Ass ociat ion had begun pre paring and fil ing a notic e and sta teme nt of lie n, later r efle cte d in a Decem ber 1, 2 022 inv oice. 19 On Nove mber 22, 20 22, M r. Jia ng req ueste d to partic ipa te in the u pcom ing Januar y 17, 2023 me etin g to ad dress the Bo ard; h owev er, Jon Mastr iana infor med hi m that t he Assoc iat ion’ s att orne y sta ted t here was “no rea son to l iste n” u nles s Mr. Jia ng fir st compl i ed. 20 An ema il from Jon Mastr iana further confirmed that P lain tiff wo uld no t be all owed to s peak b efore the B oard unt il his w indo w violati ons we re correc ted. 21 16 JX 14. 17 JX 11. 18 JX 12. 19 JX 17; JX 18; JX 19. 20 JX 15. 21 JX 15; JX 76 at 7 (“The response to that request was in an emai l to Plaintiff dated November 22, 2022 fr om Jon Mastrian a . . . that info rmed Plaintiff that he would be permitted to spe ak with members of Council about whatever matters he wished to discuss

5 Mr. J iang did n ot atte nd t he Ja nuar y 17 mee ting, and in di scover y Mas triana characteriz ed the m eeting as a “ workshop” only after t he fact. 22 That chara cter izat ion c onf lict s with t he contem pora neous m inutes f rom t he Januar y 17 m eeti ng, which show the Boar d discus sed home owner ma tter s, ne w bu sine ss, an d upda tes o n ong oin g comm unity i ssues s uch as par king and tra sh — t opics inc onsiste nt with a wor kshop a nd indica tive of a re gula r Board mee ting. 23 On Febr uary 24, 2 023, the Co unci l instr ucted its attorne y to notify Mr. J iang that fi nes w oul d beg in accr uing if he f aile d to cur e the ongo ing viola tion. 24 The notic e to Mr. J iang advised him that the Ha slet Pa rk C ounc il fou nd t he in stal led windows non - confor ming and t hat fines wo uld comme nce on March 10, 20 2 3, at $20 pe r day f or thirty da ys, and increas e to $30 per da y therea fter. 25 A Notice of Cont inuin g Violati on wa s recor ded w ith th e Ne w Cast le Coun ty Recorde r of Deeds. 26 A s of Oc tober 1 3, 20 25, t he As soci atio n calc ulated to tal fine s of $27, 678.00 (an d count ing). 27 with such members if h e removed the illeg ally installed w indows and installed co nforming windows.”). 22 JX 65 at 4. 23 JX 61 at 10; JX 65 at 4. 24 JX 17 at 2. 25 Id. 26 JX 18. 27 D.I. 258 at 9.

6 On March 24, 2023, t he Board invi ted Plain tiff to atte nd a Zoom hear ing on Apri l 11, 20 23 to dis cuss the vio lati on. 28 The inv itation indic ated a Zoom i nvite would be sent out c loser to the dat e, ho weve r P lain tiff tes tifi ed that he never receiv ed a Zoo m link. 29 On J une 26, 20 23, Hasle t Park no tifi ed P laint iff of an opp ort unity to addre ss the Board a t its Jun e 27, 2023 mee ting and pr ovide d him with a Z oom link for par tici pati on. 30 The Board allot ted Pla intiff te n minu tes to speak, but he wa s ultim atel y permi tte d approx imately for ty min utes to pre sent his posit ion dur ing the meetin g. 31 At the me eti ng, th e Boa rd li sten ed to the Pla intif f, bu t did not spe ak to the P laint iff abou t the windo ws. 32 Mr. Jia ng’s expe rien ce with th e windows prompted him to run for a position with th e Board. 33 Mr. Jia ng par tici pate d in the 2023 Board election a nd campaig ned active ly. 34 Mr. Jian g created h is own pr oxy f orms a nd ob taine d proxie s from oth er 28 JX 24; D.I. 260, Ex. P. 29 JX 24; D.I. 260, Ex. P; Tr. 259:2–9. 30 JX 32; D.I. 260, Ex. Q. 31 Tr. 407:15–16. 32 Tr. 197:15–198:1. 33 Tr. 10:14–16; Tr. 198:13–18. 34 Tr. 198:2 0–199:1; Tr. 89:8 – 11 (“Q. You actu ally got to vote for Mr. Jiang at the A ugust 2023 election? A. Yeah . . .”); Tr. 414:18 –20 (“Q. Did Mr. Jiang actually get votes at the August 8, 2023, electio n? A. Yes.”).

7 unit owne rs. 35 When the init ial an nual me eting on Ju ly 1 8, 2023 fa iled to rea ch quor um, th e Counc il recon vened the mee ting and esta blished q uoru m at t he Augu st meetin g. 36 At the Aug ust 8, 2023 Boar d me etin g, u nit owne rs ca st vote s in pers on and by pro xy un der the pr ocedu res se t forth in t he Code. 37 The Boa rd’s lega l c ounsel collec ted the prox ies an d ball ots, a nd took them back to he r offic e to tally. 38 Mr. Jian g did n ot receive enough v otes t o obta in a seat on the Boar d. 39 In add iti on to h olding the elec tion on Augu st 8, 2 023, t he C ounc il al so pa ssed a R esolu tion (“Resolu tion”) creat ing a new a ssessme nt proce ss fo r a ttor neys’ fee s. 40 The Re solutio n allo wed the Ass ociation to assess reaso nable a ttorneys ’ fees, costs, and exp ense s incurr ed by H aslet P ark if the Assoc iat ion’ s attorne y has to 35 See, e.g. JX 44 (email from Charles Armstrong requesting hi s proxy form to be for Kun Jiang); Tr. 263:2 1– 23 (Plaintiff testified that he copied the HOA’s pr oxy form and created one for himself). 36 Tr. 38:1 5–22; Tr. 3 32:8–17; JX 56 (t he voting resul ts from the August mee ting which confirms a quorum). 37 JX 56; Tr. 332:8–17; JX 71 at 2. 38 Dionne Philmore, a r enter who attended the August 8 mee ting, testified that S ydnor refused to disclose pro xy forms received or count ballo ts publicly, p laced the ballots in a box, and took them to her offi ce. Tr. 67:5 –68:1. Jea nne Scheper t estified that atto rney Caren Sydnor received the proxy forms b y a box on the table at the meeting. Tr. 458:1– 7. Tr. 459:2 – 8 (“A. Did I count the proxy form? Q. Yeah. A. No, I did not count. Q. Who counted? A. The lawy ers.”). 39 JX 47 (Mr. Jiang did not receive enough votes to obt ain a seat on the Boar d. The Inspector of Election certified t hat only t he five nominees receiving the highest number of votes were elec ted, and Mr. Jiang receive d 17.56848% of the votes — far few er than th e elected candidates). 40 JX 73.

8 “cor respond wi th [an ] Owne r concerni ng any violati on of the Govern ing Docu ment s, any de linq uent condo min ium fees, or deli nqu ent comm on or specia l assess ment.” 41 Althou gh the R esol ution wo uld be appl ica ble t o any hom eow ner, Mr. Hale te stified th at that the purp ose wa s to rec oup a ttorne ys’ fees from M r. Jiang. 42 The Re solu tio n doe s not i dent ify w ho ca n imp ose a ttorneys’ fee s or a proc ess if a unit ow ner obje cts t o the fees. 43 The R esolu tion furthe r makes a unit owner “resp onsible for re asonable att orne ys’ fees, c osts a nd expe nse inc urred by t he Assoc iat ion” in th e event the re is litiga tion t o coll ect an ou tstandi ng delin quent condo minium f ee, or sp ecia l as sessm ent, or t o enf orce any prov ision of t he Gover nin g Doc ume nts. 44 Th e R esolut ion w as voted on b y the Cou ncil in adv ance of the Augus t 8, 20 23 Board mee ting, at w hat wa s descr ibed a s a “pre- meeting. ” 45 Desp ite be ing r efle cted o n the mee ting m inutes, it wa s not d iscusse d during th e Augus t 8, 20 23 C oun cil mee tin g when th e home owner s were pr ese nt, rather it wa s 41 Id.; Governing Docu ments are the Declarati on, Code of Regulation s, B ylaws, rules, and duly adopted R esolutio ns that collectively esta blish the rights, obli gations, and procedures governing the Associat ion and its member s. 42 Tr. 478:3–10. 43 JX 73. 44 Id. 45 Tr. 478:11–15; Tr. 49 5:4–19; Tr. 500:3 –501:9.

9 vote d on by the Coun cil shortl y befor e the Boa rd mee ting a nd sub sequentl y sent to Jon Mast ria na to dis tribut e to the hom eow ners. 46 M r. Jiang initiate d li tiga tion a gainst Ha slet Park a nd Mast riana o n August 1, 2023. 47 Mr. Jiang ’s Complaint assert s that Mastr iana a nd the As socia tio n cons pire d to app ly the Code unfair ly regar ding t he w indow v iolatio n, re stric t ed his access to Boar d mee tings, an d inte rfere d with the ele ction proce ss, among ot her thi ngs. 48 Th e Court a ddresse d sever al claim s and m otion s before a nd duri ng trial. Before trial, the Court di smiss ed M r. Jia ng’ s defam ation and int ention al inflic tion o f emot ional distr ess c laim s. 49 Durin g tria l, the Cour t d ismi ssed M r. Jiang’ s ci vil con spira cy claim agai nst a ll defendants, his claim for puniti ve da mages, and his re ques t for disso lution of the Board, the lat ter of wh ich he ra ised o nly in pretr ial brief s. 50 Th e Court a lso dismi ssed the bre ach of con tract c laim a gainst Ma striana, fin ding n o contra ctual re lations hip e xiste d betwee n M r. Jiang a nd Mastr iana. 51 Mr. Jia ng’ s remai nin g clai ms of aiding an d abe ttin g, brea ch of fid uciar y dut ies, and br eac h of 46 Tr. 479: 2–10; Tr. 49 9:1–22; Tr. 500:3 –501:9. 47 D.I. 1. 48 D.I. 23 at 24–33. 49 D.I. 46 at 7 –8, 9. 50 Tr. 336:21–343:20. 51 Id.

10 contra ct are ad dress ed i n thi s F inal R eport, in additi on to th e count erclaim s for injunc tive an d decla ratory re lief, tr espa ss, and attorn eys’ fees. II. ANAL YSIS A. PLAI NTIF F’S CL AIMS 1. Aidin g and Abet ting Clai m Again st Mastrian a The ba sic f our - part test f or provin g an a iding a nd abe tting cla im i s well - settled under Dela ware la w and was ar ticulate d by this Co urt in Malpi ede. The test r eq uire s “(1) the existe nce of a fiducia ry relatio nsh ip, (2) a br each of the fiduc iary ’ s duty,... (3) kno wing par ticipati on in that breac h by the defe ndants, and (4) dama ges prox imate ly cause d by t he brea ch.” 52 In these in stanc es “[t] o establish the element of scie nter for ai ding - and - abett ing cl aims, ‘ the plain tiff m ust de mons trate t hat the aider and a bett or had act ual or c onstruct ive kn owl edge t hat t heir c onduc t was lega lly improper.’” 53 Here, the P lai ntiff alle ges tha t Mastria na ai ded an d abet ted th e Bo ard’s a lle ged breac h by car ry ing ou t cer tain ac tions re lated to vi olati on notices, home owner compl aints, an d, mo st notab ly, the han dli ng of the annu al ele ctio n and proxy 52 In re Mindb ody, Inc., S’holder Litig., 332 A.3d 349, 389 (Del. 2024) (citing Malpiede v. Townson, 780 A.2d 10 75, 1096 (Del. 200 1)). 53 In re Columbia Pipeline Gp., Inc. Merger Liti g., 342 A.3d 324, 356 (Del. 202 5) (quoting RBC Cap. Mkts., LLC v. Jervis, 129 A.3d 816, 862 (Del. 2015).

11 proce ss. 54 Th e P lain tiff claims that M astrian a a cted a s more tha n a ne utral age nt and inste ad ac tive ly fac ilitated impr oper c onduct b y the B oar d. 55 The re cord do es not su pport th at conclus ion. T he testimon y and exh ibits show that Ma striana ca rrie d out task s at the d irectio n of th e Boar d or t he A ssoc iati on’ s legal c ounsel. 56 The te stim ony co nfirm s that Ma stria na added t he P lain tiff’ s name to the bal lot on ly af ter recei vin g a dir ect in structi on from t he Boar d. 57 Ma striana did not co ntro l the pr oxy form lis t, and there is no e vide nce tha t it remove d, exc luded, or ot herwi se in terfe red with t he P la intiff’ s partic ipation in the elec tion p roce ss. Mastr iana ’s rol e in the c ommun ica tion s regar ding the P la intiff’s r ight to addre ss the Boar d undersc ores its l imite d, “ agent - bas ed ” capac ity. An ema il from Mastr iana rela yed, on behalf of the Boar d’s attor ney, that P laintiff w ould not be allo wed t o spe ak b efore the Boar d until his wi ndow vio lati ons w ere c orre cted. 58 Simila rl y, Mas tria na’s exp lanat ion th at a Jan uary 2 023 ga ther in g was a “ worksho p” 54 D.I. 23 at 31 –32; D.I. 257 at 13. 55 D.I. 23 at 27, 31–32. 56 Tr. 357:1–20; JX 38 at 3; JX 65 at 8; JX 6; Tr. 378:1 4–379:19. 57 Tr. 357:8–13. 58 JX 15; JX 7 6 at 7 (“The resp onse to that request w as in an emai l to Plaintiff dated November 22, 2022 from Jon Mas triana … that informed Plaintiff that he would be permitted to spe ak with members of Council about whatever matters he wished to discuss with such members if h e removed the illeg ally installed w indows and installed co nforming windows.”).

12 rathe r tha n a for mal m eeti ng was c onsiste nt wi th simply communi cating the B oar d’s positi on. 59 The s ame patt ern i s evi dent in th e ha ndli ng of prox ies a nd e lecti on mater ials. Mastr iana ’s disc overy resp ons es repe ated ly sta te that it did no t hand le or rece ive prox ies, did n ot collec t ball ots, and di d not tab ulate e lect ion res ults. 60 The Boa rd mana ged t hose f unc tions d irectly. 61 Mast rian a’s involv ement wa s limi ted to distr ibuting explan atory not ices, answering homeowne r question s about the pro cess, and for warding communicati ons as ins truct ed. 62 Email s and corre sponde nce in the recor d conf irm that w hile Ma str iana wa s listed as the con tact per son for in quir ies, it clar ified i t was no t resp onsible f or crea ting pr oxy form s, dist ributin g ball ots, or shari ng ele ction re sults without a uthor ization fr om the Board. 63 Altho ugh some of Mast ri ana ’s comm unica tion s have bee n poo rly phr ased and some of Mas tri an a’s actio ns were poorly h andle d, there is n o evidenc e of bad fa ith, dece ption, or inte nti onal i nterfe renc e wit h the P lai ntiff’ s rights. No thing i n the recor d su ggests that Mast riana made or influe nce d the u nder lying dec isio ns regar din g atte ndanc e, policy, or the s truct ure of Boar d mee tings. Rather, it se rve d 59 JX 65 at 4. 60 Id. at 8–9. 61 Id. 62 JX 38 at 3; JX 65 at 8–9. 63 JX 6; JX 38 at 3; JX 65 at 8–9; Tr. 378:14–379:19.

13 as a conduit th rou gh wh ich the Boar d’s dec isions an d cou nsel’ s advi ce were commun icated to hom eowner s. 64 The action s des cribe d fall wi thin the ordina r y scope of a proper ty mana g e ment comp any ’s dut ies. Thus, the re cord do es not e stabli sh tha t Mastr iana know ingly partic ipated in aidin g and abe tting. Plaintif f’s a idin g and abe tting c laim agai nst Mastr iana fail s. 2. Breach of Fid uciar y Du t y Claims To start, “[t]he e quitable tort for bre ach of fiduc iary duty ha s only two fo rma l eleme nts: (i) t he ex istence of a fi duciary duty a nd (ii) a brea ch of that duty. ” 65 Under Delaw are la w, “[a]lthough a claim f or breach of f iduc iary d uty ha s only tw o formal elements, a [pl ain ti ff] cannot obt ain a meanin gful r emedy with out addi tional showi ngs that para llel t he other e leme nts of a tra ditiona l com mo n - law to rt. One is harm to the [plaintiff ] or a benef it wrongl y rece ived by the f iducia ry. Anot her is a suffic iently co nvinc ing causal li nkage be tween the bre ach and the rem edy so ught. ” 66 “To ob tain a meani ngful remed y for a bre ach of d uty, a plain tiff m ust es tablis h by a prepo nder ance of the e vide nce ei ther tha t the pla intif f suffe red harm or t hat t he 64 JX 39 at 1 (“ … I am demanding your fir m to ensure a fair and tr ansparent proced ure for this election.”); JX 47 (“Based upon the number of prox ies and ballots inspect ed by me, I confirm a quorum.”). 65 Basho Techs. Holdco B, LLC v. Georgetown Basho Invs., LL C, 2018 WL 3326693, at *23 (Del. Ch. July 6, 2 018). 66 Leo Invs. Hong Kong Ltd. v. Tomales Bay Cap. Anduril III, L.P., 3 42 A.3d 1166, 11 92 – 93 (Del. Ch. 2025).

14 fiduc iar y wron gful ly rece ived a bene fit. A plaint iff al so mu st prov e by a prepo nder ance of the e vide nce t hat a suff icient causa l linkag e exi sts betwe en t he breac h of duty a nd the remedy so ught to m ake the reme dy an ap t means of addre ssin g the bre ach.” 67 i. Breac h of Fiduc iary Duty Claim Aga inst Mastriana The ev ide nce doe s not sup port a fin ding t hat Mast riana brea ched its fiduc iary dutie s o wed to it s memb ers. Unde r the Mana gement Agreement, Mastr ian a’s auth orit y was limi ted t o adm ini strat ive and mi nis teria l functio ns, inclu ding the mana geme nt of com mon ar eas, ha ndlin g corres ponde nce, mai ntainin g rec ords, an d enfor cin g boar d - ad opte d rule s, al l perf ormed under the e xplic it di recti on and instr uct ion of the Boa rd. 68 As previ ously note d, the rec ord refle cts that M astr ian a opera ted withi n th is co nfine d sco pe of a uthor ity and di d not e xercise inde pende nt discre tion tha t wo uld gi ve rise to l iability f or breach of fi duciar y duty. 69 67 Metro Storage Int’l LL C v. Harron, 275 A.3d 810, 859 (Del. Ch. 2022), judgment entered sub nom., In re Metr o Storage Int’l LLC v. H arron, 2 022 WL 24 73354 (Del. Ch. July 5, 2022). 68 JX 62 at 1 (“The Agent shall man age the c ommon areas of the site, on behalf of t he Board and under their direction. Both the Age nt and the Board agree to the following terms and conditions list ed in the total of fifty (50) numbe red agreement items.”); see, e.g. JX 62 at 4 (“ The final dec ision for any contracts or services will b e that of the B oard”); see also JX 62 at 8 (d irect reporting and in struction are fu rther reinforced in pr ovisions such as, “The Agent reports to and takes instruc tion from the P resident of the Council. ”). 69 JX 62 at 1; see e.g. J X 62 at 4 (“The final d ecision for any contracts or services wi ll be that of the Board”); see also JX 62 at 8 (direct reporting and in struction are further reinforced in provisio ns such as, “The Age nt reports to and takes instruct ion from the President of the Counci l.”).

15 Plain tiff con tends th at viol ation notices conce rning hi s window r eplac ement were issue d summar ily and w itho ut me anin gful e ngageme nt, in vestigat ion, or prov ision of applica ble g uide line s, desp ite his att em pts to se ek clarif icat ion fr om Mastriana. 70 I disagree. T his c onduct d oes n ot dem onstrate tha t Mastr iana acte d negl igen tly or o utsid e its dele gated ro le. Rather, the evidenc e shows that such notic es were is sued under B oar d instruct ion, a nd that Ma stria na merel y exec uted admin istrativ e task s consiste nt with its c ontr actu al re spons ibi litie s. Th e docu ments and te stim ony es tabl ish t hat Ma striana’ s ac tions w ere d irec ted by t he Board a nd tha t it lac ked t he di scr etiona ry a uth orit y nec essar y to s upport a find ing of brea ch. Accor dingly, t he Court co ncl udes t hat Ma striana did not violate any duty of care. The re cord a lso does not e stab lish a breac h of t he du ty of l oyal ty. The re is no evide nce tha t Mastr iana acte d in bad fa ith, s ought pers onal gain, or adva nce d its o wn intere sts at the e xpen se of the Asso ciat ion or any of i ts mem bers. 71 The re cord sh ows that Ma striana d id n ot inde pendent ly refus e req uests or arbi trarily re strict acc es s to inform ation or part icipati on. 72 When Pla intiff was ult imately gran ted a meet ing with 70 See, e.g. Tr. 367:4–6 (“Once the contract i s signed, [Mastriana] the n take [s] instructions from board members on what duties the y want [Mastriana] to perf orm.”); see also Tr. 353:21–24 (“Q. Does a nybody other than H aslet Park C ouncil have t he ability to approve a request for architectu ral change? A. No.”); see also Tr. 16:12 – 17:3 (Mastriana wa s at the July meeting wearing a bulletpro of vest and appeared to only be there to assist w ith the election and not to vote or effect policy). 71 Tr. 349:17–350:14 (re ferencing JX 62). 72 Jon Mastrian a stated unequivocall y, “Once the contract is sign ed, we then take instructions from the board members on what duties they want us to perfo rm.” He

16 the Boa rd, he wa s given a chance to present h is pos ition. Mas triana’s l imite d refusa l to comm unicate d irec tly wit h Mr. J iang durin g the di spu te peri od appear s to hav e been m ade a t the in structio n of the C oun ci l, ref lecti ng adher ence to proced ura l direc tion r ather tha n the exerc ise of sel f - interest ed judg ment. 73 The re cor d furt her show s ther e is no in dicat ion that M astr iana co nc eal ed inform ation, ma nipul ated d iscl osur es, or ot herwi se de viate d from B oar d directi ves. 74 Test imon y an d exh ibit s con firm tha t Mas triana did no t pre pare or di stribute pro xy form s, did not c ontr ol ba llot c onte nt, an d merely f orwar ded comm unic ati ons a s instr ucte d by the B oard. 75 While th e P lai ntiff a llege s that Ma striana exe rci sed discre tion, fac ilitate d certa in impro per B oar d action s, or st ood to ben efit f rom described Mastriana’s actions as str ictly limited to collecting d ues, maintaining fina ncial records, communicatin g per B oard request, a nd carrying out other board - assigned tasks. Tr. 367:4–6. 73 Tr. 254:15–20; JX 46 at 1; JX 48 at 1. 74 Mastriana testified t hat to get on the ba llot, candidates would nee d to express interest to The Boar d. Tr. 356:18 –24. Plaintiff created his own prox y, as Mast riana does not create or provide proxy forms for can didates for th e Board elections. Tr. 35 7:16–359:6; Tr. 384:18–21. Mastriana does not decide whether an H OA Board C ouncil meeting ha s met the quorum requireme nts. Tr. 359:13–360:6. Mastriana did not obstr uct candidates from creating proxies or soliciting votes by prox ies and is not aware of any other party obstructing this process. Tr. 385:4–10. 75 Plaintiff admitted he “received a viola tion notice in the mail . . . fr om Mastriana Property Management, Inc.” and that “John and Jon Mastriana. . . later e mailed Plaintiff and confirmed the notification. ” Tr. 25 2:13–253:4. Those a dmissions show only tha t Mastriana communicat ed Board decisions a nd not that it created policy or exer cised discretion. Jon Mas triana testified that no one other than Haslet P ark Council had the ability to approve a req uest for architectural changes. Tr. 353:21–24; Tr. 384:9–21.

17 inde mnificatio n or pay ment provi sions, th ese asse rtions are not substanti ated by cred ible e vide nce. The to tali ty of t he rec ord est abli she s that Ma stria na ac ted i n accor dance wit h its a dmin istra tive resp onsibili ties and did n ot e ngage in c onduc t amoun ting t o dislo yalty, b ad fai th, or self - deal ing. Theref ore, ba sed on the e vidence pr ese nted, the Co urt finds t hat Mas triana did not br eac h its fidu ciary dut ies of ca re or loya lty. ii. Breac h of Fiduc iary Duty Claim Aga inst Hasle t P ark The rec ord su ppor ts a find ing t hat Has let Pa rk brea ched i ts fiducia ry duti es of care an d loyalty t o its mem bers. The e vide nce dem ons trate s that the As socia tion engag ed in c onduc t that under mi ned tr anspar ency, fai rness, and t he equita ble trea tment of home owner s, part icularl y in connec tion with the 2023 B oard e lectio n. 76 Duri ng the 202 3 ele ction cycle, i t appeare d that pr oxy form s we re prim arily share d with re side nts who su ppor ted the sitti ng Boar d mem bers, rather t han to all 76 Prior to the July 18, 2 023 annual meeting, t h e Board, on be half of t he HOA, distributed proxy forms listing five candidates. Plaintiff’ s name was omitted fr om the list. JX 60 at 1. T he Board President, Benj amin Hale, admitted to personally delivering his ow n proxy forms to residents. JX 74 at Def. Hasle t Park Homeowne r’s Associat ion Resp. to Pl.’s Req. for Admis. No. 43. Hale testified that the Board was under no obligation to provide pr oxy forms. Tr. 409:12 –17. The Board Secretary, Jeanne Scheper, testifie d that the proxy forms w ere received by Caren Sydnor thro ugh a box at the time of the meeti ng, and did not go to Scheper. Tr. 458:1–7. The bylaws re quire proxies be “filed with the Secretary before the appointed time of each meeting.” JX 71 at A rt. II, § 5. The bylaws also suggest that the inspector of the election should be el ected, not appointed, like Robe rt Valihura. JX 71 at Art. III, § 7(f).

18 unit own ers on eq ual terms. 77 The prox y for m the B oard circ ulated al so did not incl ude Mr. Jia ng’s nam e, an d it doe s not app ear t hat a s ing le, c onsis tent pro xy form was ma de ava ilab le to all re side nts on e qual ter ms. 78 This contribut ed to the impre ssio n that the proxy pr oces s was une ven and not clea rl y comm unica ted. 79 Altho ugh the Boa rd co nten ds tha t any h omeo wner could c rea te and c irculate t heir own pr oxy, t he pra ctica l effect of t his u nequ al proc ess signif ica ntly com promise d the in tegri ty of t he ele ctio n. 80 These fac ts implica te the princ iples Dela ware cour ts apply when examini ng pr oxies. 81 The se ac tion s ref lect a failure to exerc ise s ou nd 77 JX 37. 78 JX 37; JX 38. 79 JX 37; JX 38. 80 Prior to the July 18, 2023, annual meeting, the B oard, on behalf of th e HOA, distributed proxy forms listing five candidates. Pl aintiff’s name was omi tted from the list. JX 60 at 1. T he Board President, Benj a min Hale, admi tted to personally delivering hi s own proxy forms to residents. JX 74 at Def. Hasle t Park Homeowne r’s Associat ion Resp. to Pl.’s Req. for Admis. No. 43. Hale testified that th e Board was under no obligation to pr ovide proxy forms. Tr. 409:12 –17. Dionne Philmore, a renter who attended the August 8 meeting, testified that Sydnor re fused to disclose p roxy forms received or co unt ballots p ublicly, placed the ballots in a box, and took them to her office. Tr. 67: 5– 68:1. Plaintiff testified that Sydnor did not accept his July 2023 me eting proxy forms and told him to get new forms for the Au gust m eeting. Tr. 211:2 –21. However, the proxy for ms from the July and August meetings were combined to meet the q uorum. JX 56 at 6 –7; JX 60. 81 Delaware law construes proxie s narrowly a nd requires precise dra fting to ensure the scope of the authority g ranted is clear and unambiguous. See Daniel v. Hawkin s, 289 A.3d 631 (Del. 2023) (reaffi rming strict const ruction of proxies und er Delaware law). In In re CII Parent, Inc., the C ourt held that a one‑page proxy li mited to “annual and special meetings” did not authorize acti on by writ ten consent, absent broader languag e in related agreements. 2023 WL 2926571 (Ban kr. D. Del. Apr. 12, 202 3). This principle echoes Freeman v. Fabiniak, where proxies restr icted to share holder meetings were deemed insufficient to permit consent procedures. 1985 WL 11583 (Del. Ch. Aug. 15, 1985). Practitioners should th erefore draft proxie s to expressl y encompass both meeting and

19 judgm ent a nd im par tial a dmi nistr ati on co nsiste nt with the dut y of care, i nste ad sugge stin g a se lf - perpet uat ing go verna nce approac h that disa dva ntage d disse ntin g members. The rec ord f urthe r show s that the Boa rd’s dec ision - making in res pondin g to Mr. Jia ng’s arch itect ural dispu te reflec ted an adve rsaria l postu re. When Mr. Jian g asked to add ress t he Board s hort ly afte r re ceivi ng th e viola tion and n ot esc alat e to legal c ounsel, m ore t han fiv e months passe d befor e the B oard permit ted his request and mor e tha n eigh t mont hs elap sed since the initial v iolatio n befor e Mr. J iang wa s event uall y per mit ted t o addre ss the Boar d. 82 The re cord s uppor ts the co nclu sion t hat Mr. Jia ng sought t o partici pate, the Boa rd exc luded him based on all eged consent actions and inc lude durational language sufficient to override the three‑year de fault term under DGCL § 21 2(b). 8 Del. C. § 212(b). While t hese cases ar ise in corpora te and quasi- corporate context s, the same principles a pply here: any entity rel ying on proxy voting must ensure fairness, clarity, and equal acces s to the franchise. This pr inciple finds f urther support at the federal level, whic h offers additi onal guidance o n the importance of fairness and clarity in proxy v oting. The S EC’s uni versal proxy rules req uire proxy cards in contested corporate elections to list all nominees — from both registrants and d issidents — so voters retain the same choices availab le to them when vo ting in person. See SEC, U NIVER SAL P ROXY: A S MALL E NTITY C OMPLIANCE G UI DE (2022). Although th is Association is not a corporate is suer and th e federal regime d oes no t directly apply, the Delaware and federal approaches i llustrate a broader commitme nt to transparency and undistorted voter choic e. 82 On March 24, 202 3, Plaintiff received an email from the Bo ard’s counsel invit ing him to attend a Zoom hearing on the ongoing violation but Plaint iff neither responde d nor attended. JX 24; D.I. 260, Ex. P. Mr. Jiang was permit ted to address the Board at the June 27, 2023, meeting. JX 32; D.I. 26 0, Ex. Q at 1.

20 nonc ompl iance, and t he Boar d later atte mpted t o justif y that exc lusio n by la beli ng the mee ting a s a “ wor kshop, ” a ra tiona le not borne o ut by the mee ting’ s subs tance. The Board also decli ned Mr. Jian g’s r epea ted reque sts for an in - person inspe cti on tha t mig ht ha ve res olved fac tual d isagr eements r ega rdin g the windo w modif ication, or at a minim um could ha ve helpe d explai n to Mr. Jiang the pr oble m with the wi ndows. 83 When M r. Jia ng expr essed co nfus ion a nd so ugh t clar ificati on abou t the mea ning of a term, t he ma tter w as ref erred to legal c ounsel. 84 T he B o ard esca lated the ma tter t hrou gh vi olat ion no tic es, fi nes, a nd th e asses sment of le gal f ees, adop ting a p uniti ve appr oach rath er than one ro oted in fa ir enforce ment. The impo sitio n of legal exp ense s to Mr. J iang, while borne in par t by the c ommuni ty, furthe r sugge sts an i mpruden t use of As socia tion r eso urce s and a disre gard for prop orti onal ity in e nforcem ent. 85 83 Plaintiff claims t hrough his No vember 22, 2 022, email that he mad e multiple requests to the Board to be heard at a Board meeting. JX 14. Plaintiff testified that because he was told that Robert Valihura would not corresp ond with him anymor e and only speak to his attorney, he was “hitting a wall” but still wanted to request a ccess to the Board mee ting. Tr. 123:1 – 9 (referring to JX 14). Jon Mastriana respo nded to Plain tiff’s November 22, 2022, email stating that Plaintiff w ould be permitted to acce ss the B oard meeti ng if he replaced his windows with con forming wind ows. JX 15. Counse l for Defendant Haslet Park was unwilling to mediate or engage in other alternative dispute resolution mec hanisms unless and until the wi ndows were replaced. JX 26 at 3. 84 D.I. 5, Ex. H at 5. 85 JX 73 at 1 (“In the event litigatio n is necessa ry to collect any out standing delinquent condominium fees or s pecial assessments, or to enforce an y provision of the Go verning Documents, the Owner shall be responsib le for reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs a nd expenses incurred by t he Association in such action.”).

21 The Boa rd al so con diti oned Mr. Jian g’s par ticipat ion in m eeti ngs a nd inter nal proce sses on his co mplianc e with d ispute d dir ectives. 86 In mu ltiple comm unic ati ons, t he Boa rd showed that it would not hea r fr om him or per mit atten danc e at A ssoc iati on mee tings unt il he comp lied, e ffe cti vely f orec losi ng hi s oppor tuni ty t o be h eard while t he centra l quest ion of co mpliance r emained unres olve d. 87 This excl usiona ry practic e underm ined t he princi ple s of ope nnes s an d proce dural fair ness tha t the duty of care req uire s. Altho ugh Delawa re law a nd the Ass ocia tion’ s own doc umen ts contem plate the ado pti on of an i nterna l dispute r eso luti on po licy, t he Boar d admitte d that no suc h proce dure had bee n impl eme nted an d that it declin ed to pa rtic ipat e in med iati on. 88 The fa ilure to e nga ge in good - f aith reso lution e ffor ts, whe n coup led wit h the den ial of mee tin g acce ss and selec tive e nfor ce ment of partici pati on ri ghts, refle cts a disre gar d for m ember i nterest s whic h ar e inc onsis tent with the obli gati ons of dilige nce and im partia lity i nherent in the duty o f care. The Boa rd also breache d its dut y of loya lty. The tria l exh ibits show tha t the Boar d enga ged i n self - interes ted conduc t b y selecti vely distri but ing pr oxies, contr oll ing ele ctora l and financ ial infor mati on, a nd pri vate ly co unti ng ball ots to 86 JX 23 at 6; JX 15; JX 26 at 3. 87 JX 23 at 6; JX 15; J X 26 at 3. 88 Tr. 297:3–6.

22 maint ain its c ontr ol o ver the Associa tion ’s governa nce rathe r t han pr omo te o pen a nd inde pend ent par ticipati on. 89 In addi tion, t he Boar d use d the HOA ’ s lega l resource s again st a di sse ntin g hom eowne r and the n cha rg ed substa ntia l port ion s of tho se expen ses t o that hom eowner’ s a ccou nt. 90 Through this c onduc t, the Boar d p lace d its ow n interest over t he fair trea tmen t of the Ass ocia tion ’ s member s and its fi ducia ry obliga tions to the m ember ship. T hese a ctio ns s how sig nifi cant p roc edur al irr egul arit ies an d a pattern o f decis ion - maki ng i ncons istent with pr udenc e and loya lty. The Cour t theref ore fin ds that Has let Par k brea che d both its dut y of care and its duty of loyalt y. 3. B reach of C ontract by Haslet Park The ev iden ce doe s not su ppor t a fin din g that Ha slet Par k brea che d its contra ctual obl igation s in con necti on wi th the ins tallatio n of Plai ntiff’s repla cemen t windows. Under Del aware law, el eme nts of a cla im for brea ch of co ntract a re “(i) a 89 JX 39 (refusal to participate in accessible, good faith dispute resolutio n violates the basic prudential norms and undermines both i mpartiality and me mber rights to internal remedies); JX 51 (fail ure to send out m onthly Board meeting m inut es as the HOA did in the past and to disclose to the members the o ngoing lawsuit against the HOA despite the financial report showin g $17,614.21 more legal expenses). 90 JX 51 (Plaintiff cit ing over $17,000 in legal e xpenses incurred by the HOA); JX 73 (the Board R esolution requi ring the individual own ers to pay the HOA’s legal fees concerning the owner’s violations of the HOA’s Governing Documents); Tr. 199:6 – 11 (Mr. Jiang testified he received a monthly bill to c ollect fines. The bill started off around $ 1,000 and at the time of trial was over $25,000); Tr. 47 8:3 –16 (Benjamin Hal e confirming that the purpose of the JX 73 R esolution was to recoup attorneys’ fees from M r. Jiang, and th at the Resolution was passed one week after this l itigation com menced).

23 contra ctual obl igatio n, (ii) a brea ch of that o bligatio n by the defe ndant, and (iii) a causa lly r elat ed in jur y tha t warr ants a rem edy, su ch as dama ges or in a n ap propr iate case, specific perfor mance.” 91 The pla intiff ne ed only p lea d cau sall y rela ted harm, whic h the p lain tiff ca n acc omp lish by pleading a viola tion of th e plai ntiff ’ s contra ctual ri ghts. 92 The G ove rning D ocument s, cre ate a co ntrac tual frame wor k requir ing unit owner s to obta in pr ior writte n appro val before mak ing any struc tura l modific ati ons, alter ati ons, or ins tall atio ns wit hin t heir u nits. 93 S ection 3 of the Code e xplicit ly manda tes that a un it owne r no tify t he Cou ncil i n writ ing thr oug h the manage men t agent or the Pres ident bef ore under taking s uch w ork. 94 Evide nce prese nte d at tr ial e stabl ishes tha t th is ap prova l pro cess w as comm unic ated t o own ers a nd cons istentl y enfor ced. 95 Mana gement i nform e d 91 Garfield on beh alf of ODP Corp. v. Allen, 277 A.3d 296, 328 (Del. Ch. 2022) (quoting AB Stabl e VIII LLC v. Maps Hotels & Resorts One LLC, 2020 WL 7024929, at *47 (Del. Ch. Nov. 30, 2020), aff 'd, 268 A.3d 198 (Del. 2021)). 92 Id. at 328. 93 JX 70; JX 71 at Art. VI, § 3. 94 JX 71 at Art. VI, § 3 (“ A unit owner shall not make structur al modifications or alterat ions of his unit or installations, in his unit or inst allations located therei n, without previously notifying the Council i n writing, throug h the managemen t agent, if any, or thr ough the President if no ma nagement agent is empl oyed.”); JX 71 at Art. IV, § 3(a) (“T he Council shall be responsible for. . . replacement of the common elements incl uding, but not limited to, fences, driveways, walks, parking, ext eriors . . . , and any common utility s ystem.”). 95 The Code of Regulati ons of Haslet Park spe cifies that “[a] unit owner shall not make structural modifications or alterations of his u nit or installations, in h is unit or installations located therein, with out previously notify ing the Council i n writing, through the

24 owner s, inc ludi ng Mr. Jiang, that a ny exteri or or str uctur al w ork su ch as wi ndow repla cem ent re qui red a dvanc e wr itte n ap prova l. 96 O ther reside nts fol lowed th is proce ss by subm itt ing wr itte n req uests f or review, an d the C ounci l eva luated eac h prop osal indiv idua lly to ensur e com pliance with c omm unit y sta ndar ds. 97 Mr. Jia ng did not c ompl y with this proce ss. 98 He did no t subm it a writte n reque st to the Coun cil or mana gement bef ore repla cin g his wi ndo ws. 99 His testi mony sh ows tha t he re lied on a conve rsati on wit h th e former B oard pre side nt, whic h he bel ieve d suf ficie nt. 100 Plaintiff f urt her te stif ied tha t he did n ot att empt to cure t he viol ati on after recei ving the initia l viola tion notic e in Oc tober 2022 or th e management agent, if any, or through the P resident if no manage ment agent is employ ed. ” JX 71 at Art. VI, § 3. Testimony was clear and concise from bot h Mr. Hale and Ms. Scheper, both of who m served on C ouncil for decad es, that any alteratio n required approval. Tr. 393: 1 –5; Tr. 395: 5 –19; Tr. 433:17 –436:13. Plaintiff was advised of t his process. Tr. 352:12–3 53:20; JX 1. 96 JX 1; Tr. 352:20–353:24. 97 Plaintiff did not recei ve different treatment than any other unit ow ner as it pertained to dealing with the wind ows in h is unit. Tr. 365:13–17; Tr. 416:7–417:17. Ben Hale testified that his wife painted their front door on ce without appropr iate Coun cil approval and as a result, they had to repaint their do or. Tr. 4 14:2–17. Jeanne Sch eper testified t hat she followed the procedur e required by the Code before replacing her own windows. S he sought to replace six windows and one of t he windows was denied because it was a casement window. She could not install t hat window. Tr. 434:1–436:13. 98 Tr. 97: 8– 13 (Plaintiff testifie d tha t he decided to “update t he wi ndows” but never mentions explicitly ask ing for Board appro val for the win dows); Tr. 353:19–24. 99 Tr. 246:8–15. 100 Tr. 242:3–246:15.

25 follo w - up not ice of vi olat ion in F ebru ary 2 023. 101 However, the G ove rn ing D ocum ent s requir e formal ap pro val fr om th e Counc il as a body, n ot a sin gle m ember or officer. 102 Trial exhi bits c onfir m that no wr itte n applica tion w as receive d befo re or durin g ins talla tio n. 103 Mr. Jiang ’s comm unicatio ns disputin g the violati on an d reque stin g a heari ng occurred on ly after the inst allation ha d been comple ted, wel l beyo nd the poin t at w hich a pproval s hou ld ha ve been sought. 104 The rec ord f urthe r dem onstr ates that Ha slet Park ap plie d the sa me appr ova l requir ement to al l reside nts. When other unit ow ners sough t to ma ke exter ior modif ications, the y subm itte d wri tten re quests and a waited a for mal deci sion bef ore 101 Tr. 253:10 –15; JX 8; JX 17 (the February 2023 violation notice); J oint Pretrial Order at 9 (showing that one of the matters t o be decided at tr ial is whether Defendan t Haslet Park can obtain a permanent injunction ordering Plaintiff to replac e the non -co nforming windows with conform ing ones, meaning that before Sept ember 9, 2025 Plaintif f had still not replaced the windo ws). 102 JX 8; JX 71 at Art. V I, § 3. 103 JX 8. 104 Plaintiff admitte d during his te stimony that he had never attended any meetings prio r to the election meetings. Tr. 253:16 –257:7. This admis sion was consistent with his Answer to Interrogator y No. 18. D.I. 260, Ex. E at 16 –17. Although Plaintiff testified t hat he was not given a n opportunity to be heard regarding the vio lation, t he record reflects that on March 24, 2023, Plaintiff received an em ail from the B oard’s co unsel inviting him to attend a Zoom hearin g on the ongoi ng violation but Plaintiff ne ither responded n or attended. JX 24; D.I. 260, Ex. P. Mr. Jiang was permitted to address the Board at the June 27, 2023 meeting. JX 32; D.I. 260, Ex. Q at 1. A lthough the Board initially allot ted Plaintiff ten minutes to speak, Hale test ified that Plaintiff was ultimately permitted approximately forty m inutes to prese nt his p osition during the meeting. Tr. 4 07:15 –16. Hale testified that despi te the June 27 mee ting, to date, Pl aintiff has not cured the violation. Tr. 407:17–19.

26 proce eding. 105 In cas es of u naut hori zed w ork, the A s socia tio n requ ired c essa tio n of cons truct ion an d compl iance wi th the G overning D ocum en ts befor e gran tin g appro val. 106 This consi sten t enfor ceme nt shows t hat Ha slet P ark acted withi n i ts contra ctual au thor ity a nd in a ccor dance wi th its G overni ng D ocument s. Accor dingly, ju dgment is e nter ed in favor of Haslet Park regar ding the bre ac h of con trac t clai m. B. DEFENDAN T’S CO UNTERCLAI MS Hasle t Pa rk fi led co untercla ims s eeki ng (1) dec larat ory judg ment t hat Mr. Jian g is in con tinui ng vi olat ion of the HOA byl aws by failing to replac e his windo ws, (2) tha t Mr. Jiang tre spasse d on the comm on elem ent s by insta lling non - conforming window s, (3) t hat Ha slet Park is entitl ed t o inju nctive r elief, and (4) att orne ys’ fees and cos ts. 107 1. Count I of the Coun tercl aim: Decl arat or y Judgm ent Hasl et Park seeks a declarat ory judg ment that Mr. Jiang is in con tinuin g viola tion of the Gov ern ing Doc uments a nd the Dela ware Unit P ro perty Act b y insta llin g, and t hen ref usin g to re place, the n on - conf orming wi ndow s. 108 The 105 Tr. 365: 18 –22; Tr. 416:16–417:3; Tr. 4 34:10–436:2. 106 Tr. 414:2–17. 107 D.I. 72 at 15–23. 108 Id. at 15–17.

27 Decla rat ory Ju dgme nt Act auth oriz es this Court to dec lar e the p artie s’ “ri ghts, statu s and o ther le gal relat io ns whe ther or no t furt her relief is or c ould be c laim ed.” 109 The evi denc e supp orts Hasle t Par k’s requ est for a d eclara tion of viol atio n. The G overn ing D ocume nts requir e unit o wners to ob tai n appr oval befor e under taki ng ex teri or or str uctura l change s of t he ty pe at i ssue here, and t hey empo wer t he Coun cil t o enfor ce th ose re stric tio ns to pr otec t the com munity’ s unif ormit y an d the comm on inter est. 110 As note d in the prior sectio n, t he re cord shows M r. Jiang d id not rece ive p rior a pproval t o inst all the re place men t wi ndow s that t he Coun cil la ter determ ined d id no t confo rm to Ha sle t Park’ s stan dards. 111 The recor d al so s hows t he Co uncil dire cted Mr. Jian g to rem ove or repla ce the w indo ws, and he ha s not done so. Mr. Jia ng therefo re r emai ns in vi olat ion, and tha t violati on cont inue s. 112 Accor dingly, t he Court enter s declara tory jud gment in favor of Ha slet Pa rk and aga inst Mr. Ji ang dec larin g tha t Mr. Ji ang is in vi olation an d co ntin uing v iola tion 109 10 Del. C. § 6501. 110 JX 8; JX 71 at Art. VI, § 3. 111 JX 8; Tr. 242:3 –246:15. 112 Tr. 253:10–15; JX 8; JX 17 (t he February 2 023 violation not ice); J oint Pretrial Ord er at 9 (showing that one of the matters t o be decided at tr ial is whether Defendan t Haslet Park can obtain a permanent injunction ordering Plaintiff to replac e the non -co nforming windows with conform ing ones, meaning that before Sept ember 9, 2025 Plaintif f had still not replaced the windo ws).

28 of the Go verni ng Doc uments based on the i nsta llatio n and con tin ued pr esenc e of th e non - con forming windows. As par t of i ts re quest for a declara tory jud gmen t, Haslet Par k see ks an a war d of th e fine s assesse d to Mr. Ji ang for his installa tion of the window s. 113 The Court find s tha t the mon etary f ine imp osed on th e Pla intif f ca nnot sta nd. S pecif ically, § 81 - 302 of the Dela ware Unif orm C ommo n Inte rest Owne rshi p Act (“ D U CI OA ”) give s the Assoc iation b road power, i ncl uding the abil ity to “exe rci se an y other power s nec essa ry an d pro per f or the governa nce an d operati on of the as socia tion.” 114 Howe ver, i t also m ust “exerc ise the deg ree of care an d loyalty to t he ass ocia tion requir ed of an office r or dire ctor of a corpo ration org anize d under Dela ware la w[,] ” whic h requ ire s fair a nd impar tial a dministr ation of a ssoc iati on r ules. 115 The re cord e stablis hes th at the Ass ociat ion’ s acti on of a sse ssing Mr. Jia ng’s fines was no t a ne utra l exer cise of its e nforcem ent au thor ity b ut a retalia tory and arbitr ary respo nse to the Pla int iff’s pr ote cted c onduc t. The timin g, co ntex t, and absence of a n estab lishe d fine pol icy al l po int to a m otive inc onsis tent with the fa ir and even - ha nded admin istr atio n requir ed under Dela ware law. 113 D.I 72 at 15–17. 114 25 Del. C. § 81-302. 115 25 Del. C. § 81 - 303; see also, 25 Del. C. §§ 81 – 302(b), (f) (prohibi ting arbitrary and capricious Board actio n).

29 This is not a conc lusio n tha t Has let Pa rk do es no t have the ab ili ty to a sses s fines a gainst a hom eowner, howe ver, t he arbi trary and re taliat ory u se of fin es under mine s the fu ndamen tal fair ness a nd good f ait h req uired in the g overn ance of co mmon - intere st commu nitie s. Ass ocia tions der ive their e nfo rceme nt power fr om the co llec tive agree ment of the ir membe rs, an d the y mu st therefore exercise that power wit h restra int and tr an sparen cy. When e nforcem ent b ecomes a me ans of repr isal, r ather t han a neu tral mec hanis m t o ma inta in ord er, the a ssoc iati on ac ts outsi de the bou nds o f it s aut hority. The G overnin g D ocu men ts for Ha slet Park conta ine d no fin e sche dule, no define d proced ure f or imp osi ng mone tar y pena ltie s, and no provisi on spe cify ing t he amoun t or d ura tion of daily asse ssme nts f or vi olat ions s uch as una uthor ized wind ow replacemen t. The abse nce of s uch struc ture lef t enfo rcement d ecisions v ulner able to arb itra ry ap plica tion. Altho ugh the P laintiff faile d to obta in pr ior writ ten a ppro val f or his wi ndow repla cem ent, th at bre ach al one d oes not validate t he Ass oci ation’ s con duct of asses sin g more t han $2 7,00 0 in fine s for a non - conforming window whil e simu ltane ous ly ref usi ng to a llow t he homeo wner an opportu nity t o address the Boa rd and ga in an u nders tanding of the v iola tio n and fi ne. Although the As sociat ion reta ins the right to e nforc e its ru les, i t must d o so in good faith an d thro ugh

30 estab lis hed pr ocedu res. Acc ordi ngly, the Cour t conclu des t hat th e mone tary fine issue d aga ins t the Pl ain tiff i s unenfor ceab le. 2. Count II of the Counte rclaim: T res pass Hasle t Park ar gues t hat Mr. Jiang’ s insta llat ion of the w ind ows without perm issio n con sti tute s a tres pass on the comm on elem ents in vio lation of the G overni ng D oc uments. 116 Ha slet Park ass erts that u ni t owne rs o nly own th e int erior box of th e buil ding, and the str uctural elem ents o utside the inte ri or box, are comm on eleme nts u nder con trol of the Ass ocia tion. 117 Thus, the contenti on th at the insta llation of the window and fra me as affix ed t o a com mon el emen t co nstit ute s a trespa ss on tho se ele ments beca use Mr. J ian g did no t ob tain H OA approv al. “The tort of tr espass c onsists of e ntry ont o real proper ty wit hout the permi ssion of the own er.” 118 The c ounterclaim p lainti ff cannot recover on the cl aim of tre spa ss. W h ere all un it owne rs — inc luding Mr. Jia ng — collecti vely own the comm on e leme nts, it is c oncept ually diffic ult to cha racte rize his cond uct a s a “tre spas s” agai nst proper ty in wh ich he h olds a prese nt ow nersh ip inte rest. Even acce ptin g the Assoc iation’ s rhet oric tha t the windo w rema ined “af fixed to the 116 D.I 72 at 15–17; JX 7 0 § 5(a)(ii) (definin g “common ele ments”). 117 Id. at 12. 118 Del- Chapel Assoc s. v. Conectiv, 2008 WL 1934503, at *3 (Del. Ch. May 5, 2008) (citing Fairthorne Maint. Corp. v. Ramunno, 2007 WL 221431 8, at *5 (Del. Ch. July 20, 2007)).

31 common elem ents,” wit hout their perm ission, Sect ion 5(b) fr ames t he com mo n eleme nts as co llect iv ely o wne d by all unit owne rs a s und ivi ded tena nts in commo n, mean ing e ach o wner is a shared - interes t holde r in tho se elemen ts, incl uding M r. Jian g. 119 Under these circu mstances wh ere the Plaint iff is a co - tena nt of the area Defe nda nt assert s he has tre spassed, and that area has n ot bee n dest roye d, I find no trespa ss has occur red. Al though P laintiff did viola te the re quirem ent to obtain pr ior appro val, tha t con duct i s disti nct fr om trespa ss. 3. Count III of the Cou ntercl aim: Permanent Injunctive Relief The Court of C hancer y applie s a t hree - pa rt tes t to deter mi ne whethe r to gra nt injunc tive relie f. To obtain that re lief, the Pe titio ner, Ha slet Park, mus t pr ove, by a prepo nder ance of the evi dence: “(1) act ual succ ess on the m erit s of the c lai ms; (2) that t he [Pe tit ioner ] will suffe r irr epara ble harm i f inj unctiv e relief is not grante d; and (3) th at the harm to the [Petit ioner] ou twei ghs the harm to th e [Responde nt] if an inju ncti on is grant ed.” 120 Applyi ng this te st, the r ecor d establi shes that Ha slet Park has me t each e lement a nd is e ntitled t o inju nctive re lief. 119 JX 70 § 5(b) (The [c]ommon [e]lements…sha ll be owned by the “Co ndominium Unit” owners …as undivided tenants in commo n…”.). 120 Pleasant Hill Homeo wners Ass’n, Inc. v. Q uillen, 2025 WL 2608 6, at *5 (Del. Ch. Jan. 3, 2025).

32 First, the Hasle t Park G overning D ocum ents re quire u nit ow ners t o obtai n writ ten a ppro val fr om the Coun cil bef ore mak ing ex terio r cha nges. 121 The P lai nti ff proce ede d with t hose alt era tions wi thout for mal ap prova l. 122 Has let Park’ s evi denc e, incl uding violati on noti ce s and ph otograp hs, show t hat Mr. Jiang’s window repla cem ents o ccurre d wit hout prior aut horiza tion. 123 Furthermore, t he record conta ins mu ltip le ins tances de mo nstra tin g con siste nt applica tion. 124 This s atisfies the ele ment of actual suc cess on the mer its. Mr. Ji ang’s ar gume nts that the Assoc iation waive d it s rig ht to enf orce t he restr ict ion or acted arbitrar ily la ck mer it. The rec ord conta ins no e vidence of syste mic non - enforce ment or ar bitr ary a dmin istra tion. On t he co ntrar y, the B oard 121 JX 70 § 9(b); JX 71 a t Art. VI, § 3; JX 72 § 4. 122 JX 17 at 1; JX 71 at Art. VI, § 3. 123 Comparing t he photos of the previous windo ws and the new, non - co nforming wind ows shows that the window s are entirely different. Compare J X 23 at 12 (photos of the new, non- conforming windo ws), with JX 23 at 13 (photos of the previou s windows); see also JX 17 (the February 2023 violation n otice); see also JX 8 (the Oc tober 2022 violation notice); see also JX 59 (photos of other units’ windows). 124 Plaintiff was not treated differently than ot her unit owners pertaini ng to his window installation. Tr. 365:13 – 17; Tr. 416:12 – 417: 3. Ben Hale testified he had to repaint his door after his wife painted it without Bo ard approval. Tr. 414:5 – 1 4. Jeanne S cheper testified that she asked the Board for approval before replacing her windows, and one of her six windows was denied because it was a casement window. She did not install that window. Tr. 434:7–43 6:13.

33 has dem onstra ted co nsiste ncy in its a pplica tion of the r ules. 125 Even if m ino r viola tion s existed, the y did n ot amount t o an a band onment of enfor ceme nt r ights. Second, Haslet P ark estab lished irr epar able har m. Un aut horize d exteri or modif ications stri ke at t he heart of what t he Associa tion is cha rged to pr otect: the comm unit y’s unifor m archite ct ural a ppearanc e, colle cti ve sta ndards, a nd prope rt y value s. It is not me rel y the phy sica l change to one prope rty bu t the los s of unif ormity and trust in t he As soc iati on’s a uthor ity th at consti tute s irre para ble injury. All owin g an ow ner to re tain una pprove d altera tions wo uld un der mine t he cr edi bilit y of th e G overni ng D ocum e nts and we ake n the A ssoc iati on’s a bili ty to en sure compl iance. 126 Thir d, the balance of harm s we ighs h eavily in fa vor of Ha slet Park. The harm to the A ssoc iati on and t he broa der comm unity f rom co ntinue d nonc omp lianc e outwe ighs a ny incon venie nce or cos t to Mr. Jiang asso ciated w ith restoring the proper ty. The Pl aintiff’ s bur den co nsists on ly of ret urni ng the pr operty t o a cond ition c onsi sten t wit h the rule s that bi nd all ho meow ners. In contra st, failur e to enfor ce those rul es would e xpose th e Associa tion to ongo ing challe nges to it s auth orit y and c oul d enc ourag e other ow ners to di sregard t he ap proval pr oces s. 125 Id. 126 JX 71 at Art. I, § 3 (ex plains the relations hip between the HOA and the peop le living in the community, which Plaintiff breached).

34 Cons iste nt enfor ceme nt en sures f airne ss among hom eow ners w ho com ply wit h the restr ict ions an d protects t he col lecti ve invest ment tha t the Ha slet Pa rk com mu nity repre sent s. Because Hasl et Park achieve d actual suc cess o n the me rits, demonstr ate d irre parab le harm, and e stab lishe d that t he bala nce of harms fa vors enf orceme nt, injunc tive reli ef is a ppro pria te. Mr. Jiang m ust r emove the unapp rov ed windo ws and br ing the pr op erty i nto f ull c omp liance wit h Ha slet Park ’s G o vernin g D ocuments. 4. Count s IV – VIII of t he Counte r claim: Fines and Att orneys’ fees Under the Amer ican r ule, each p arty ord inaril y bea rs it s own a ttorne ys’ fees, absen t a sta tutory or contract ual fee - s hift ing pro visio n, or a reco gnize d equita ble exce ption s uch as ba d faith lit igation co ndu ct. 127 Counte rclaim pla intif f, Hasl e t Park, asser ts five bases f or imposin g attorney s ’ fees and co sts; contr actual fe e shif ting un der Arti cle 9(g) of t he Dec laratio n, contr actual f ee shift ing of the Gover nin g Doc umen ts, sta tutory f ee shif ting unde r 25 De l. C. § 81 - 417(a), statutory fee s hiftin g under 25 Del. C. § 2210, and sta tutory fe e shift ing un der 25 Del. C. § 81 - 315(e). 128 127 Mahani v. Edix Medi a Gp., Inc., 935 A.2d 242, 245 (Del. 200 7); s ee generally Dearing v. Mixmax, Inc., 2023 WL 2632476 (Del. Ch. Mar. 23, 2 023) (ORDER). 128 D.I. 258 at 14–15.

35 i. Fee sh iftin g under A rtic le 9(g) Anothe r “except ion to th e Ameri can rule ‘is found in contr act litiga tion that involv es a fe e shifting provis ion.’ When a co ntract co ntai ns a fe e shif tin g prov isio n, Delawa re cour ts will enf orce that provision.” 129 This C ourt mus t inte rpre t fee shif ting pr ovis ion s as it wo uld any c ontract prov isio n, by interpr eting them accor din g “to their pl ain meanin g.” 130 Defe nda nt Hasl et Park a r gues that unde r the D ec laratio n, spec ifica lly under Artic le 9(g), the Associa tio n is all owed to br ing a n acti on to re cove r sums d ue an d dama ges, includi ng th e expen ses of addr essin g misco nduc t an d fail u res to c ompl y. 131 Admit tedly, a review o f Article 9(g), does pe rmit the C ounci l compens atio n, howe ver, despite t he finding in this R epor t that Ha slet P ark is e ntitled t o decla rat ory and in juncti ve reli ef, I de cline to shift att orne ys’ fees whe n it was al so de termi ned that H asle t Par k brea ched the ir fid uciary d utie s. 132 ii. Fee shifting under the G overn ing D ocuments 129 GB- SP Hldgs., LLC v. Walker, 2024 WL 47 99490, at *24 (Del. Ch. Nov. 15, 2024) (quoting Ba ko Patholo gy LP v. Bakotic, 288 A.3d 252, 2 80 (Del. 20 22)) (internal citation omitted). 130 Bako Pathology LP, 2 88 A.3d at 281 (quotin g Scion Bre ckenridge Managing Member, LLC v. ASB Allegiance Real Est. Fund, 6 8 A.3d 665, 683 (Del. 2013)). 131 D.I. 72 at 19. 132 JX 70 § 9(g)(“Failure to co mply with this Declaration, Code of Regulation s, or nay provision of the Dela ware Unit Propert y Act… shall subject the offending party to an action for recovery of damages or for the in junctive relief, or both… ”).

36 Hasle t Park argu es th at the G ove rning D ocument s bin d all u nit ow ne rs i n the commun ity. 133 D efendant Ha slet Park ar gues it i s entit led to c ontra ctual fee sh ifti ng in ligh t of the R esolut ion passed by the C ounci l, whic h it ar gues is contract ually bindi ng on Mr. Jian g. 134 The A ssoc iati on created t he R es oluti on seven da ys after Mr. Jia ng f iled his laws uit, i n an eff ort to ass es s leg al f ees agai nst th e Plain tiff. Immedia tely after t he Plain tiff init iate d legal a ctio n aga ins t the B oard, the Council conv ened befor e the elect ion and annual B oard mee ting, outsid e the purview of the h omeowne rs, and adop ted a R esolut ion imposing a fine sp ecifically agains t Mr. Jiang. 135 The r ecord also conf irms th at th is was shor tly afte r the Pla intif f had e xpresse d an i ntere st in servi ng on t he B oar d, making th e B oar d’s ra pid re sponse ap pear mo tiv ated b y reprisal rather t han n eutral r ule enfor ceme nt. 136 The Asso ciat ion ha s offere d no persua sive just ifica tion for t he timi ng or na ture of thi s pena lty and the te stimon y offer ed at tri al fur the r acknow ledged tha t the reso lution was cr eated for Mr. Ji ang and for this litigati on. 137 133 D.I. 72 at 4–5. 134 D.I 258 at 4–5 and 14 –15; JX 73. 135 JX 73; D.I. 1. 136 JX 28; JX 37 at 2. 137 Tr. 478:3–479:12; Tr. 481:7–483:9; Tr. 485:3–13.

37 Althoug h t he Asso ciati on reta ins the ri ght t o establ ish ru les, it must d o so in good f ait h and thro ugh es tablishe d proce dures. Th e imp ositi on of an ad h oc fine witho ut support ing au thor ity and i n direct t emp oral pro ximity to the P lai ntiff’ s lega l challe nge demo nstra tes bad faith an d retaliat ion. 138 A ccor dingly, the C ourt concl udes that the asse ssme nt of lega l fee s under the R esolution wa s reta liatory, n ot done in good faith, and is th us unenf orce able. iii. Attor neys’ fe es und er 25 Del. C. § 8 1 - 417(a) Secti on 81 - 417(a) is a fe e - shif ting provi sion withi n DUCIOA framework. It prov ides for attor neys’ fees in actions co ncerni ng viola tions or enforce ment of rights under the Act, t he D ec larat ion, bylaws, or r ules of t he comm on i ntere st com mun ity. As a st atutory ex ception to the Ame rican rul e, § 81 - 417 (a) autho rizes a cou rt to award reas onable attorneys’ f ees to a pre vail ing par ty or par ty ent itle d to relie f, subje ct t o the s tatu te’ s term s. Hasle t Par k ar gues that P laintif f ’ s wil lful and intent iona l fa ilur e to com ply with th e Cod e, spec ificall y Artic le VI, Se ction 3 t hat requ ir es writte n notice of a struc tura l cha nge, s hould resu lt in an awar d of r eas onab le attorne ys’ fees. 139 Howev er, § 81 - 417 (a) gives t he Cour t disc retio n to asse ss reasona ble attorneys’ f ees “in a n appr opriate case.” Al tho ugh M r. Jiang di d fail to obta in appr oval to change 138 Tr. 199:6–11. 139 JX 71.

38 his wi ndows, h is la ck of ap prov al wa s not due to a disr egar d of the r ules, ra ther a n obvio us confus ion o f w hat was c ons idere d a struct ural c han ge, a nd sinc ere be lief that t he cha nge was not a stru ctura l change. As such, a ttorneys’ fee s wi ll not be asses sed t o Mr. J ian g under th is the ory. iv. Attor neys’ fe es under 25 Del. C. § 2210 Hasle t Park se eks to shif t attorne ys’ fe es un der 25 Del. C. § 2210, which perm its the As soci ati on to br ing an ac tion aga inst a uni t o wner to recover dama g es, incl ud ing the expen ses relate d there to for failing t o comply. 140 Has let Park argue s that t he Associ ation incur red f ees a nd expense s due to the P laintiff ’ s failu re to compl y. 141 However, as note d prev iousl y, the Assoc iati on deci ded alm os t imme diat ely to in vol ve co unse l in this m atter w hen M r. Jian g expr essed co nfusio n, sough t clarific ation, a nd wa nted to ex plai n his p osi tion a nd he ar fr om the C ouncil. Base d on the Associa tion’ s punit ive and re taliato ry appr oach in hand ling th is matte r, I dec line to s hift l ega l fees u nder this sec tion. Th e rec ord e stab lishe s that Mr. J iang’ s claim s arose from a genuin e dispute over the Ass ociation ’s enfor cement 140 See 25 Del. C. § 2210 (“Failure to comply w ith the code of regulations and with such rules governing the de tails of the use and operation of th e property and the use of the common elements …, conditions and restri ctions set forth in the declaration or in deeds of units or in the declaration plan shall be grounds for an action for the recovery of damages or for injunctive relief or both maintainable by any memb er of the council on beh alf of the council or the unit owners or in a proper case by an aggrieved unit owner or by any pers on who holds a mortgage l ien upon a unit and is aggrieved by any such noncomplia nce,”). 141 D.I. 258 at 15.

39 of its ar chi tectu ral a ppro val pr ovi sions, his un succ essf ul at tempt to gai n a seat o n the Boar d, and the Board ’s me tho d of im pos ing fine s. Mr. Jia ng’s act ions we re base d on leg itim ate gr ieva nces, incl uding t he Board’ s decisi on to pas s a retalia tor y resolu t ion sh ortl y aft er he soug ht inv olv ement in Boa rd ac tivi ties a nd initia ted litiga tion. Th is fact ual conte xt su ppor ts th e reas onab lene ss of M r. Jia ng’s decis ion to see k jud icia l int ervent ion. v. Attor neys’ fe es und er 25 Del. C. § 8 1 - 315(e) Secti on 81 - 315(e) addr esse s asses sment s an d the col lecti on of com mo n expen se lia bilities w ithin c ommon in tere st comm unit ies. This section allo ws the recovery of attorne ys’ fees incurr ed in the co llection or enfor cement of unpaid asses sme nts or relat ed char ges auth oriz ed by g overning d ocument s. 142 As a modif ication o f the Ame rican r ule, § 8 1 - 315(e) ma kes f ees part of the r eco verab le amoun ts w hen a n ass ociat ion purs ues de li nque nt asse ssments, subject t o statutor y and cont rac tual pre requ isi tes. As disc ussed ea rlier in t his R eport, Mr. Jia ng ha s not br eached his ob liga tion to pa y asse ssme nts from t he A ssoc iati on be cause the f ines and l egal expense s aga ins t Mr. Jian g were n ot as sesse d ap propr iately. As suc h, attor neys’ fe es under 25 Del. C. § 81 -315(e) are not war ranted. 142 See 81-315(e).

40 Findi ng that none o f the e xceptions to the Americ an Rule are appr opriate here, t he Cour t decl ines t o shift attorneys ’ fees. Each p art y mus t be ar its own c osts of litiga tion. III. CONC LUSIO N For the reas ons exp lained a bove, I recom mend that j udgment be entere d in favor of Mastriana, partia lly in favor of Mr. Jiang, and pa rtia lly in fav or of th e Assoc iation. The A ssocia tion is entitled to declar ator y and injunc tive rel ief requir ing Mr. Jia ng to remo ve the u napprove d win dow s and res tore his uni t i n compl iance wit h the G ove rning D ocuments. Howe ver, the m onetary fi ne s imposed again st Mr. Jian g are unenforceab le. The Court f urther fin ds no tres pass a nd denies the D ef endants’ req uest f or attor neys’ f ees. Each pa rty shal l be ar its o wn c osts. The par ties shal l meet and c onfer to de termine a r easo nab le ti me fra me f or Mr. Jiang to upd ate the non - confor min g wind ow with time fo r Mr. Jiang to obtain the nec essary app roval by th e Council. The par ties s hall sub mit a sti pula tio n to the Court w ith in thir ty days, o utlin ing a plan of action. If t he par ties are una ble t o agre e, compe ting propo sal s may be s ubmitted to the Cour t. This is my F inal R epor t, and e xceptio ns may be file d un der Co urt of Cha ncery Rule 1 44.