Q. The tenant of an owner in our condominium association rents out the unit for weekends, while the tenant is out of town. Our declaration prohibits these short-term rentals. What sort of remedies are available to our association?

A. This is actually not that uncommon of a practice, given the explosion of the vacation rental market. It is one that usually catches the owner of the unit by surprise when they find out that their tenant is subleasing their unit to strangers! The owner will frequently take action directly with the tenant to stop the practice.

That said, there are a variety of remedies available to the association. The Association can levy a fine against the owner, resulting from the tenant’s violation, after providing written notice of violation and an opportunity for a hearing. More aggressively, the Condominium Property Act permits the association to terminate the lease between the owner and the tenant, and file an eviction suit against the tenant, as a result of the violation. The owner may be responsible for the association’s attorney’s fees.

Q. Your column recently noted that the Condominium Property Act provides that the annual budget must also set forth each unit owner’s proposed common expense assessment. Is it enough to make a general statement that assessments will increase by some state percentage of ownership, or must the specific dollar amount of each unit’s assessment be listed?

A. Just indicating a percentage increase in the annual assessment would not appear to meet the statutory requirement of Section 9(c)(1) of the Condominium Property Act. The conservative approach dictates including a list of all of the unit assessment amounts with the proposed budget. In associations where there are percentages of ownership common to multiple units, it may be adequate to simply identify the assessment amount associated with a particular percentage of ownership.

Q. I own two adjacent units. I want to open the wall between the two units, so that I have one large living space. The board of my condominium has told me I cannot do this. Is there anything in the laws covering association that speaks to this issue?

A. This issue is governed by Section 29 of the Condominium Property Act. A unit owner owning two or more units does have the right, subject to such reasonable limitations as the condominium instruments may impose, to remove or otherwise alter any intervening partition, so long as the action does not weaken, impair or endanger any common element or unit. The unit owner must notify the board of managers of the nature of the removal or alteration at least 10 days prior to commencing work.

So, unless opening the wall between the two units will weaken, impair or endanger any common element or unit, and subject to reasonable limits in the declaration and bylaws, an owner can open the wall between two units owned by that owner.

Q. The board members in our common interest community association spend a lot of their time dealing with association matters; more than should be expected of volunteers. Can the board members be paid by the association?

A. This issue is governed by Section 1-25(c) of the Illinois Common Interest Community Association Act. That section provides that “the members of the board shall serve without compensation, unless the community instruments indicate otherwise.” Notable, “community instruments” means “all documents and authorized amendments thereto recorded by a developer or common interest community association, including, but not limited to, the declaration, bylaws, operating agreement, plat of survey, and rules and regulations.”

So, you need to look at the association’s community instruments to determine if payment of compensation to the board members is permitted.

However, even if the declaration or bylaws do not provide for the payment of compensation to the board members of a common interest community association, the board could adopt rules that would permit payment of compensation to the board members. That is because of the broad scope of the definition of what is considered a “community instrument.”

This is different from a condominium, where the bylaws would have to expressly provide for payment of compensation to the board members. A condominium board could not simply adopt a rule that would permit the board to be compensated.

• David M. Bendoff is an attorney with Kovitz Shifrin Nesbit in the Chicago suburbs. Send questions for the column to him at CondoTalk@ksnlaw.com. The firm provides legal service to condominium, townhouse, homeowner associations and housing cooperatives. This column is not a substitute for consultation with legal counsel.