Critters damage roof to get into attic

Q. We are experiencing a situation where two of the units in a six-unit townhouse are experiencing rodents in their respective attics. These are two-story units attached by a common fire wall one to another.

The two homeowners experiencing the rodents believe they are responsible for only removing the rodents, and that the homeowners association is responsible for all other costs because they say the rodents have gained entrance to their unit through the roof.

The relevant documents say: "The association shall be responsible for the replacement of any roof or roofing system on the residential units, if it is determined by the association that roof replacement, as opposed to roof repair, is required. In addition, the association shall have a sole and exclusive responsibility and authority to maintain and repair all exterior finishes and coatings of the residential units, including, but not limited to, stucco finishes and paint."

The documents exclude roof repair, yet these folks have convinced others that the homeowners association is responsible for roof repairs. The owners claim that the second sentence regarding external finishes obligates the homeowners association.

What do you think? Who is responsible for rodent repair? Who is responsible to repair the roof? Who is responsible for any other damages?

A. My opinion will be based upon the facts contained in your letter. Of course, a thorough review of the condominium documents would be required to offer a more a more comprehensive opinion.

I am curious as to what other costs you are referring to. Once the rodents are removed, the only cost I can fathom is the cost of sealing the entry point or points. How much could that cost? Are you guys really fighting over a couple hundred dollars?

Regardless, to take the position that the term "maintain and repair all exterior finishes and coatings" applies to roof repairs is quite a stretch. It appears to me that language applies to addressing paint or other exterior coatings that may become worn or damaged. Certainly, the language "as opposed to roof repair" supports that contention. If the entry points are located at these homeowner's properties, I believe they would be solely responsible for the repairs.

Correction: In my March 1 column, in response to a question regarding the duties of real estate agents, I stated that a real estate agent working with a buyer was precluded from taking any action not in the seller's best interest. I further indicated that the buyer's agent did not have a fiduciary duty to the buyer. I stated this was because the buyer's agent was, in most cases, being paid by the seller. This is known in the legal world as "sub-agency," which is no longer the law in Illinois. Real estate agents working with buyers are required to perform their duties solely in their buyer's best interests. I apologize for the error.

• Send your questions to attorney Tom Resnick, 345 N. Quentin Road, Palatine, IL 60067, by email to tdr100@hotmail.com or call (847) 359-8983.