REAL ESTATE 33: Lien against property for attorney fees under condominium’s bylaws.

Plaintiff owns Unit 233 at the Condominium complex. Defendant is its owners’ association. In June 2016, plaintiff proposed to lease Unit 233 to a tenant, and accordingly submitted a lease application to defendant for its approval. Under defendant’s bylaws, an owner must submit a lease application for defendant’s approval at least 10 days before entering into a lease agreement with a proposed tenant.

Defendant failed to respond to plaintiff’s application for 22 days, and, due at least in part to that delay, plaintiff’s proposed tenant decided not to rent Unit 233 from plaintiff. Plaintiff then rented the Unit 233 to another tenant without giving defendant advance notice. Defendant subsequently informed plaintiff that it would not approve the tenant’s lease and that plaintiff was in violation of defendant’s bylaws.

In July 2016, plaintiff filed a complaint in the small claims division of the 51st District Court seeking damages in the amount of $371 plus costs and fees. The complaint alleged that plaintiff lost 12 days of rent due to defendant’s failure to timely approve plaintiff’s original lease application.

Plaintiff and defendant mutually agreed to dismiss that case without costs.

Defendant then filed a lien against plaintiff’s property for attorney fees under defendant’s bylaws, which provides, in pertinent part:

In any proceeding arising because of an alleged default by a Co-owner, lessee, tenant, non-Co-owner resident and/or guest, the Association, if successful, shall be entitled to recover the costs of the proceeding and such reasonable attorney fees (not limited to statutory fees) as may be determined by the Court, but in no event shall any Co-owner be entitled to recover such attorney fees. The Association, if successful, also shall be entitled to recoup the costs and attorney’s fees incurred in defending any claim, counterclaim or other matter asserted against the Association from the Co-owner asserting the claim, counterclaim or other matter.

In October 2017, plaintiff filed the complaint in this case, seeking to enjoin defendant from foreclosing on its lien, and seeking a declaration that the lien was invalid. Plaintiff moved for summary disposition, contending that defendant’s bylaws was unenforceable because it conflicted with the provisions governing the recovery of attorney fees in the Michigan Condominium Act, MCL 559.101 et seq.

The trial court, however, granted summary disposition in favor of defendant under MCR 2.116(I)(2), holding that the Condominium Act did not conflict with defendant’s bylaws. The trial court subsequently denied plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration.

An entity’s bylaws are a contractual agreement between the entity and its members. Condominium association bylaws constitute a binding contractual agreement between the governing entity and its members to the extent that the bylaws do not conflict with or are not inconsistent with state law.

Plaintiff argues that, because the article of defendant’s bylaws at issue in this case allows for the recovery of attorney fees in situations other than those contemplated by MCL 559.206(b) and 559.207, they conflict with the Condominium Act. The court disagreed. It does not conflict with or contradict either of the cited statutory provisions; rather, it merely provides for the recovery of attorney fees by defendant in additional circumstances.

Are you involved in a real estate dispute in Michigan? Are you seeking an efficient and effective resolution to a property litigation matter? Our attorneys have litigated literally thousands of cases. Our founding attorney, Brad Aldrich, is a knowledgeable real estate lawyer and skilled trial lawyer with more than 20 years of legal experience.

Contact Aldrich Legal Services

Is My Conviction Eligible for Expungement?

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 community service to fines, to jail or prison...

REAL ESTATE 44: Rule of acquiescence in boundary disputes.

The doctrine of acquiescence provides that, where adjoining property owners acquiesce to a boundary line for a period of at least fifteen years, that line becomes the actual boundary line. The underlying reason for the rule of acquiescence is the promotion of peaceful resolution of boundary disputes.

FAMILY LAW 37: Referee recommended against changing legal custody or parenting time.

Plaintiff requested sole legal custody, arguing that she and defendant had difficulty co-parenting and that defendant would not agree to medical treatment for the diagnosis and treatment of ADHD, need for orthodontic work, and need for vision testing and glasses. Plaintiff also requested an alternating weekly or biweekly schedule during the summer, which would increase her overall parenting time.

REAL ESTATE 40: Tax Tribunal denied petitioner’s claim of a principal residence exemption (PRE).

MCL 211.7cc(2) provides that an owner of property can claim the PRE by filing an affidavit that must state that the property is owned and occupied as a principal residence by that owner of the property on the date that the affidavit is signed and shall state that the owner has not claimed a substantially similar exemption, deduction, or credit on property in another state.

The Steps of Construction Litigation

Most contracting agreements move forward without any problems, but when disputes between contracting parties come up, it can be confusing to understand the legal process to take. The legal experts at Aldrich Legal Services want to make the...

REAL ESTATE 38: Plaintiff fails to make land contract payments.

The land contract stated that T Company sold real property to plaintiff. The land contract further stated that if plaintiff failed to make a monthly payment, T Company could execute the quitclaim deed, thereby terminating plaintiff’s rights to the real property under the land contract.

CONTRACTS 6: Do you understand the clauses in your Purchase Agreement?

The trial court granted defendants’ motion for summary disposition, concluding that the claims against the realty companies were barred by the valid release contained in the purchase agreement and that the claims against sellers were required to be resolved in arbitration because they fell within the scope of the arbitration clause in the purchase agreement.

DIVORCE 29: Spousal support in gross is non-modifiable, whereas periodic is subject to modification.

As the name implies, periodic spousal support payments are made on a periodic basis. Periodic spousal support payments are subject to any contingency, such as death or remarriage of a spouse, whereas spousal support in gross is paid as a lump sum or a definite sum to be paid in installments. In addition, one major difference between the two types of spousal support is modifiability. Spousal support in gross is non-modifiable, whereas periodic spousal support is subject to modification pursuant to MCL 555.28.1.

How to Dispute an Insurance Adjustment

When something drastic happens, many people need to take extra steps to rebuild your home, recover property, or pay medical bill collectors. Unfortunately, most people believe they have no backup plan if their insurance company refuses their claim...

PROBATE 28: Probate court enters a protective order providing support for a community spouse.

A probate court’s consideration of the couple’s circumstances cannot involve an assumption that the institutionalized spouse should receive 100% free medical care under Medicaid or an assumption that a community spouse is entitled to maintain his or her standard of living. Medicaid is a need-based program, and a Medicaid recipient is obligated to contribute to his or her care.

REAL ESTATE 36: Plaintiff argued that her claim was not time-barred because it did not accrue until the grandmother’s death.

Plaintiff’s interest in the subject property is best characterized as a remainder estate, because her right to possession of the property was postponed until the occurrence of a specific contingency, that being the deaths of the grandparents. Plaintiff pursued this action within the 15-year limitation period; accordingly, this action is not barred by MCL 600.5801(4).

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