Now Accepting New Clients!

REAL ESTATE 10: Dispute between a unit owner and the Condominium Association.

This matter arises out of an ongoing dispute between a unit owner in the Condominium, and the Condominium Association (the Association).

Unit Owner was a member of the Association’s board until he resigned over a procedural dispute, and he was the Association’s website designer and operator until he deleted the website and replaced it with what he concedes was a “gripe site” when the Association wished to take control of the website itself. Thereafter, Unit Owner contends that he has made numerous efforts to vindicate the legal rights of condominium members, ensure that the Association follows the law, obtain outstanding payments for website hosting and services, and gain access to various records; the Association contends that Unit Owner has waged a tireless vendetta of harassment and antagonism.

In this matter, it is manifestly apparent from Unit Owner’s conduct that he intends to continue making an issue of his disagreement with how the Association’s board conducts its affairs whether or not there is any sound reason to do so. The fact that a disruptive, antagonistic force of pettifoggery exists in the system appears to be itself enough of a basis to conclude that future disputes will occur and are not merely hypothetical, making a determination of the Association’s rights to govern its affairs, and one angry owner’s rights to interfere, not merely an abstract issue. We therefore conclude, reluctantly, that the trial court should not have found some of these issues moot, and we are forced to adjudicate them.

We therefore hold that the First Amendment was entirely proper for the Association’s board to enact without a co-owner vote, because it did not materially affect the rights of the co-owners. We therefore need not discuss the applicability of any theories of recovery.

The Condominium’s bylaws provide that meetings of the Association shall be conducted in accordance with Sturgis’ Code of Parliamentary Procedure, Roberts Rules of Order or some other generally recognized manual of parliamentary procedure when not otherwise in conflict with the Condominium documents or the laws of the State of Michigan. It is undisputed that the Association historically relied on Robert’s Rules of Order. Unit Owner argues that the Association’s board violated this bylaw provision by adopting certain standing rules without a majority vote of the co-owners and by failing to address certain points of order he raised at the 2013 annual meeting. He further argues that the trial court erred in relying on the fact that there is no law dictating the use of parliamentary procedure. We agree only with the latter point, but find it immaterial.

Unit Owner also argues that the Association’s board violated Robert’s Rules of Order during the 2013 annual meeting by improperly responding to his efforts to raise points of order. The Association points out that Robert’s Rules of Order explicitly provide for appeals from decisions by the chair of an assembly, and states that members have no right to criticize a ruling of the chair unless they appeal from his decision.  No such provision was in any materials provided to us, but our own research verified that the Association accurately cites an extant provision. There is no dispute as far as we can determine that Unit Owner left the meeting instead of attempting to appeal any of the alleged violations. Considering his reliance on the particulars of Robert’s Rules of Order, we conclude that his own arguments bind him to having no right to criticize the Association’s board’s actions as a result.

We find the Association’s description of events far more persuasive after reviewing the record, and we agree with the trial court that Unit Owner’s claims are without merit, some egregiously so and clearly pursued for improper purposes. We decline to impose sanctions for frivolity out of respect for the parties’ agreement foregoing any such sanctions. However, the Association may be entitled to an award under MCL 450.2493 at the trial court’s discretion and subject to a right to be heard on the matter. Furthermore, we understand that there may be other post-judgment matters, such as case evaluation sanctions, to be addressed. We therefore affirm the trial court’s dismissal of all of Unit Owner’s claims, and we remand for any further proceedings as may be warranted not inconsistent with this opinion. We do not retain jurisdiction.

Are you involved in a real estate dispute in Michigan? Are you seeking an efficient and effective resolution to a property litigation matter?  At Aldrich Legal Services, we understand that litigation can be costly and time-consuming. We are focused on helping our clients resolve disputes in the most efficient and cost-effective manner possible, consistent with their objectives.

Contact Aldrich Legal Services

PROBATE 42: Dissolution of professional corporation.

This case involves the estate of a doctor whose professional corporation also had to be dissolved upon his death. The personal representative of the estate sold the company’s assets but did not pay off the company’s debts before transferring the proceeds to the estate and distributing them to the heirs.

REAL ESTATE 73: Quiet title action.

This case involves a dispute over real property located in Michigan. W and V who are D’s parents, acquired the property. In 1999, W and V conveyed the property to the Trust, to which W is the sole trustee, via a quit claim deed. At some point...

How Is Alimony Determined In A Michigan Divorce?

Originally posted on 06/22/2018. When filing for divorce in Michigan, you may seek alimony, spousal support, from their spouse whenever they require financial aid. A judge may order your spouse to pay certain alimony. However, it depends...

Is My Conviction Eligible for Expungement?

Originally posted on 10/11/2019. At one point or another, we have all made mistakes. For some people, those mistakes involved breaking the law. Convictions have a large impact on someone’s life. Beyond the sentencing ranging from...

PROBATE 45: The court held that the probate court did not err by granting summary disposition for Plaintiff, or by denying Defendant’s request for an extension of the discovery period, adjournment of mediation, and issuance of subpoenas and by dismi

This case arises out of competing petitions for probate. On November 19, 2018, Defendant initiated this case by filing a petition for probate, attaching Decedent’s death certificate and purported last will and testament, dated March 9, 2007,...

DIVORCE 57: Holding that the trial court’s factual findings were not supported by the record evidence, and thus could not stand, the court reversed, vacated the portion of the Amended Default JOD ordering defendant to pay $3,325 to plaintiff, and re

Plaintiff first testified that she and defendant purchased the marital home in 1995. At the time the first default judgment of divorce was entered in September 2017, plaintiff had the home appraised. The value of the home was determined to be...

FAMILY LAW 68: The court held that the satisfaction of the statute relating to the termination of parental rights does not necessarily provide clear and convincing evidence in a parenting time dispute that a child will be harmed by reintroduction to

In a separate case, defendant’s parents filed a petition to terminate plaintiff’s parental rights and adopt RM on the ground that plaintiff had been absent from RM’s life for over three years. One month before the petition was...

FAMILY LAW 66: The court affirmed the trial court’s retroactive child support modification as to the second credit to which plaintiff-mother admitted at the referee hearing, and reversed and remanded as to the trial court’s equitable abatement of th

The parties have two children in common, and both children are now adults. The parties were never married, but plaintiff was granted custody and defendant was ordered to pay child support. After the youngest child turned eighteen, defendant sought a...

FAMILY LAW 65: The court held that because the ECE was not altered by the change of school districts, the referee properly applied the preponderance of the evidence standard when reviewing the best interest and parenting time factors.

BASIC FACTS The parties divorced in 2018. Their judgment of divorce provided that plaintiff would have primary physical custody and that the parties would have joint legal custody of the two minor children. The judgment of divorce stated that the...

FAMILY LAW 64: The court reversed the trial court’s order granting joint physical and legal custody of the parties’ children to defendant-father, concluding that the trial court improperly conflated his motion to change custody with plaintiff-mother

The parties divorced in 2013. The judgment of divorce granted mother sole physical and legal custody and ordered that the child’s domicile would remain in Michigan. In 2015, the trial court granted mother’s motion to change domicile,...

5 Common Misdemeanors Affecting People in Michigan

Originally posted on 11/08/2019 There are many different levels of crime and the consequences once someone has been charged with them. One bracket of crimes is known as a misdemeanor. Let’s go over this level of crime and some common...

PROBATE 44: The court held that the probate court did not err by declaring a will executed by the decedent invalid on the basis that she lacked testamentary capacity to execute it and that it was the product of petitioner’s undue influence.

Defendant and Decedent met in August 2017. In approximately November 2017, Decedent began talking constantly about wanting Defendant to take her to see an attorney for the purpose of changing her will. On March 19, 2018, Defendant filed a petition...

Michigan Expungement Law Updates For 2021

There has been a new law regarding expungements for the state of Michigan.  Gov. Gretchen Whitmer signed legislation that expands the criteria for expungements related to traffic offenses, marijuana convictions, and minor...

Wills and Trusts

Originally posted on: 02/14/2014 Aldrich Legal Service provides legal advice and representation for residents in Plymouth, Ann Arbor, and Southeast Michigan. We also review recent legal cases to examine what took place and what we can...

REAL ESTATE 68: Holding that plaintiffs-buyers’ allegations of fraud in this case arising from the sale of a residence did not preclude the trial court from granting defendants’ motion for summary disposition based on a release, the court affirmed.

This cause of action arises from plaintiffs’ purchase of a residence from defendant, who had rights in the house under a land contract from co-defendant, the legal owner of the house. Before the house was for sale, in January 2018, an upstairs...

Don't let a bad decision, unfair contract, or a messy divorce get in the way of a promising future!
Contact the experienced team at Aldrich Legal Services today to schedule your free initial
and secure reliable and trustworthy representation today!
Get the Help You Need From a Team You Can Truly Count On: (734) 404-3000