A unit owner and former Board member ("Plaintiff'') sued Big Base Lake Community Association (BBLCA) seeking access to Association records. Defense counsel was appointed by the Association's insurer. The Court of Common Pleas entered a Peremptory Judgment in mandamus in the Plaintiff's favor, directing the Association to provide broad-effectively near-unfettered- access to its records. BBLCA has appealed the Order to the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court.
Among other things, the ruling compels access that, as applied here, includes categories such as executive-session and draft minutes, accountant reports/communications, and operational records relating to capital and maintenance projects (e.g., dam and amenity records). These categories go well beyond what the governing Pennsylvania state statutes provide and raise privacy, privilege, and confidentiality concerns.
Pennsylvania law leaves important questions unsettled regarding the scope of records available to unit owners under the Uniform Planned Community Act, 68 Pa. C.S.A. § 5101 et seq. (UPCA), and the Pennsylvania Nonprofit Corporation Law, 15 Pa. C.S. § 5101 et seq (NPCL). Those questions include, but are not limited to, the scope of records that an owner is entitled to inspect, whether an owner's rights extend beyond inspection, and whether an association may assess reasonable administrative fees in connection with such requests. This appeal presents a vehicle to clarify these questions and could set precedent guiding associations and owners statewide.
The trial court's ruling not only departs from established statutory limits under the UPCA and NPCL but also expands member-inspection rights far beyond what Pennsylvania law permits. The issues outlined below reflect significant legal and practical errors in the court's analysis, each of which underscores why this appeal raises important questions warranting CAI's attention and potential participation.
- Proper purpose was not established. The court failed to adequately consider the surrounding circumstances-including Plaintiff's nearly identical requests the previous year and the pendency of a derivative action- when concluding that a proper purpose existed under the NPCL.
- The order disregards established privacy, privilege, and confidentiality protections. The court's ruling ignores Pennsylvania law, including the Supreme Court's guidance that member access may be limited where confidentiality serves the interests of the corporation or the public. See Lewis v. Pennsylvania Bar Ass 'n, 701 A.2d 551 (Pa. 1997).
- Compelled disclosure of executive-session minutes is improper. Under Lewis and related authority, executive-session materials receive heightened confidentiality, and compelling their production constitutes error.
- Compelled disclosure of draft minutes exceeds statutory rights. The UPCA and NPCL provides members with access to approved minutes-not drafts-and the trial court's ruling improperly expands statutory inspection rights.
- The decision expansively and incorrectly redefines "books and records of account." The ruling sweeps in operational and project-related materials (e.g., dam and amenity maintenance records) that are neither financial records nor statutory corporate records under the UPCA and NPCL.
- The ruling fails to require the requesting member to bear reasonable production costs. The court did not require Plaintiff to pay the reasonable costs associated with compiling materials BBLCA had already agreed to produce prior to litigation.
Court: Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
Topic: Access to association records
Brief Author: Brenda B. Sebring, Esq., Joshua F. Hall, Esq.
Filed: July 6, 2026