Now Accepting New Clients!

REAL ESTATE 81: Plaintiff’s requests to inspect records of condominium association.

Defendant, EV Condominium Association, denied plaintiff’s record-inspection requests because, according to defendant, the requests did not state a proper purpose. This led plaintiff to file a complaint in the trial court to compel his record inspection requests.

Record Inspection

This case arises out of plaintiff’s requests to inspect seven records: (1) bills or invoices showing the cost of past litigation; (2) records relating to orders for wrist bands that were given to co-owners to allow them access to the condominium’s pool; (3) work orders or invoices for bulb replacement done in plaintiff’s building; (4) Board minutes from April 2019 until September 2019; (5) records relating to plaintiff’s checks from approximately June 2019 through September 2019 were received by defendant and posted to plaintiff’s account; (6) Board minutes for 2018; and (7) financial statements for 2017 and 2018.

Defendant denied plaintiff’s requests, which led to the lawsuit.

Defendant Denies Request

In the motion, defendant argued that plaintiff had to state a proper purpose to inspect documents when his inspection request was made. Defendant attached numerous correspondences between plaintiff and defendant, and argued that, based on those correspondences, it was impossible to determine what documents plaintiff was requesting to inspect and for what purpose he was requesting the inspection. Defendant contended that, for this reason, plaintiff’s inspection requests were made without a proper purpose, so defendant was justified in denying the requests.

Plaintiff asserted that if defendant read plaintiff’s requests properly then plaintiff’s proper purpose for his inspection requests would be clear and argued that defendant had the burden to prove that plaintiff’s purposes for his requests were improper under MCL 450.2487. He also asserted that he was entitled to inspect the records by virtue of MCL 559.157, which did not require him to state a proper purpose.

Court Opinion

At issue is plaintiff’s requests to inspect records of defendant, a nonprofit condominium association. The books, records, contracts, and financial statements concerning the administration and operation of the condominium project shall be available for examination by any of the co-owners and their mortgagees at convenient times

In its opinion, the trial court repeated the record-inspection requests from plaintiff’s complaint and noted that they were difficult to follow, but ultimately concluded that they were clear enough to inform defendant of what records Plaintiff is seeking, and why. Accordingly, the trial court denied defendant’s motion for summary disposition and granted summary disposition to plaintiff insofar as he sought to inspect defendant’s records.

Real Estate Transactions and Litigation Attorney

Are you involved in a real estate dispute in Michigan? If you are facing a residential or commercial real estate dispute, seek the advice of an experienced and skilled real estate litigation attorney at Aldrich Legal Services.

Contact Aldrich Legal Services

Speak to a Pro: (734) 404-3000

FAMILY LAW 83: A trial court can terminate a parent’s rights and permit a stepparent to adopt a child.

A trial court has discretion to terminate a parent’s rights and permit a stepparent to adopt a child when the conditions of MCL 710.51(6) are met. MCL 710.51(6)(b) requires the petitioner to establish that the other parent had the ability to visit, contact, or communicate with the children, and substantially failed or neglected to do so for a period of two years.

PROBATE 53: The trust agreement included an Incontestability Provision.

A settlor’s intent is to be carried out as nearly as possible. Generally, in terrorem clauses are valid and enforceable. However, a provision in a trust that purports to penalize an interested person for contesting the trust or instituting another proceeding relating to the trust shall not be given effect if probable cause exists for instituting a proceeding contesting the trust or another proceeding relating to the trust.

FAMILY LAW 82: Court stated it would terminate the personal protection order (PPO) after the parties present documentation of the initiation of the divorce proceedings.

However, the trial court concluded that these matters should, in fact, be in the province and the jurisdiction of the Family Division and in that respect, having issued a personal protection order, the Court stated it would terminate the personal protection order after the parties present documentation of the initiation of the divorce proceedings.

What to Do When Homeowners Insurance Denies Your Claim

Since 1955, homeowners insurance has helped owners protect their property and belongings against damages and theft. According to the Insurance Information Institute, over 93% of homeowners in the US have homeowners insurance coverage, paying around...

What to Look for in a Criminal Defense Attorney

Originally posted on 10/20/2017 If you are charged with a crime, you could face severe penalties that could include financial fines, public service, or even jail time. For those in the Michigan area, hiring an attorney experienced in...

PROBATE 51: Trust filed a petition to determine title to credit union account.

The probate court explained that the owners of the account are S and J. When S passes, J becomes the owner of the account. J is the one who had the authority to make the designation. Nowhere in any documents is there a designation by J that SJ be the owner -- or the beneficiary of the account. The designation made by his father was no longer binding because he was no longer the owner at the time J passed away.

Invoking Your Right to Remain Silent

Originally posted on 07/19/2017 While the “right to remain silent” represents one of your most inalienable rights, many people have a few misconceptions about how it works. Many people receive their understanding of this...

Arrests made by tracking cell phones may be illegal

Originally posted on 02/10/2017 Law enforcement agencies are always looking for an edge in fighting crime. As cell phones have become an indispensable part of life for many people, authorities have taken to using these devices to track...

Could I lose my job over a drunk driving arrest?

Originally posted on 01/20/2017 When potential clients ask us questions about criminal defense representation (particularly for drunk driving offenses) one of the most common is whether they will lose their job.  Naturally, this...

FAMILY LAW 77: Court awarded plaintiff sole legal custody; defendant was unwilling to work with plaintiff.

For joint custody to work, parents must be able to agree with each other on basic issues in child rearing including health care, religion, education, day to day decision making and discipline and they must be willing to cooperate with each other in joint decision making. If two equally capable parents are unable to cooperate and to agree generally concerning important decisions affecting the welfare of their children, the court has no alternative but to determine which parent shall have sole custody of the children.

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