Michigan Condominium Act Case Study

Kevin Hirzel of CMDA recently scored an important victory for Michigan condominium associations in Cove Creek Condominium Association v Vistal Land & Home Development, L.L.C., et al., Oakland County Circuit Court Case No. 16-155706-CH (Order Granting Summary Disposition, Dated February 10, 2017). The Oakland County Circuit Court held that the 2016 amendment to MCL 559.167 does not re-create “need not be built” units on common element land that is owned by the co-owners. The ruling will have an impact on any incomplete condominium projects that contain “need not be built” units and also meet one of the following two (2) requirements:

This is a formal complaint submitted to BHP/DCA against Frank Pinelli, Quantum Developers LLC (Developer) Condominium Association: Cedar Woods Condominium Association (Board) and Jim Polos, Midlantic Property Management.

In Mt. Veron Park Association v Chantelle Clark, Michigan Court of Appeals Docket No. 323445 (December 29, 2015) (Unpublished), the Michigan Court of Appeals held that a Condominium Association could not create rules and regulations that were inconsistent with the maintenance responsibilities set forth in the Master Deed and Bylaws. Specifically, the Mt. Veron Park Association adopted a rule and regulation that indicated that all co-owners must paint must have their front doors painted dark brown. The Association requested that the co-owner paint her door dark brown. The co-owner argued that the Master Deed and Bylaws placed the responsibility for the cost of maintenance, repair and replacement of the door on the Association, even though

I, (“Unit Three Owner”), and I, _____, (“Unit Two Onwer”), both with an interests in 650 Huron Ave Condominium enter into this agreement. In consideration of the mutual agreements set forth below, and for other good and valuable consideration, the adequacy and sufficiency of which the Parties acknowledge, and intending to be legally bound, the Parties agree as follows:

Cedar 28 Condominium Association (“the Association”) makes the following Litigation Disclosure Statement pursuant to Minnesota Common Interest Ownerships Act, Minn. Stat. § 515 B.4-107(b). The Association makes this disclosure in good faith based upon the best of its knowledge.

The Plaintiffs, Garetsons, own a well in Haskell County, which they use for irrigation pursuant to a vested water right. The Defendant, American Warrior Inc. (AWI), owns two nearby wells with junior water appropriation rights. Garetsons sued AWI requesting an injunction to prevent AWI from pumping groundwater. The District Court found that AWI’s wells were causing significant impairment and drawdown of the Garetsons’ water rights. As a result, tThe District Court granted an

“Any dealing with the whole of the property requires the involvement of all the co-owners. We have seen that there is a general principle that it is impossible to give a greater right than you have yourself … nemo dat quod non habet” .

On April 20, the District of Columbia Court of Appeal decided in the case “S. Brooke Purll Inc. v. Vailes” to reverse a trial court judgment and to remand it for further proceedings. The case was a dispute between a contractor - S. Brooke Purll, Inc.- and a house’s owner Patrick Darrell Vailes -. The latter sued in the Small Claims and Conciliation Branch for the return of a $5000 payment as an initial payment for the contract while the latter counterclaimed $36.102.04 for liquidated damages. The judge found that the owner failed to perform a demolition and to pay $ 7,031.71. It also determined that the liquidated damages clause was a penalty and, therefore, was not enforceable. It also found that the lost profits damages were not proven and

Both parties must be bound.” Both parties must be required to perform under the contract, “in other words, it must be enforceable originally, or not at all.” Sayres v. Wheatland Group, L.L.C., 79 Va. Cir. 504 (Va. Cir. Ct. 2009). As stated by The Circuit Court of Fairfax County, Virginia "if it appears that one party was never bound on its part to do the acts which form the consideration for the promise of the other, there is a lack of mutuality of obligation and the other party is not bound." Busman v. Beeren & Barry Invs., LLC, 69 Va. Cir. 375 (Va. Cir. Ct. 2005).

Case Briefing #2 Vizcaino v. US Dist. Court for WD of Wash., 173 F. 3d 713 (9th Cir.1999)

The court relied on the plain language of the statute as well as the statute of frauds, MCL 566.106. Specifically, the court held that the right to construct “need not be built” units is eliminated by operation of law and that a property interest created by operation of law is not subject to the statute of frauds. As such, the court granted summary disposition in favor of the Cove Creek Condominium Association and held that the “need not be built” units ceased to exist and that the defendants could not withdraw the undeveloped land from the condominium in 2016.

Professional Building Maintenance vs The School Board of the County of Spotsylvania, Virginia in the Supreme Court of Virginia

In this matter, the Co-Owners have no relationship with the Byrne. Of course, Byrne contends that the Co-Owners are “comprised of every person, firm or corporation which owns any condominium unit within the [complex],” and that the Co-Owners are responsible for “the care, upkeep and surveillance of all the buildings.” (Compl. ¶¶ 4, 10). Byrne, however, is not a person who “owns any condominium.” The only conduct alleged

That gives the land lord and tenet both a duty in order to have a good relationship with eachother. The land lord has the obligation to make the following repairs in a timly manor. Emergency repairs such as a gas leak, flooding, defective furnace, or major roof damage, Major problems such as a defective water heather, clogged drain, heating problem, or more, Minor problems such as defective lighting, locks, peeling paint, dripping faucets, and more. The tenant has obligations for maintenance under Michigan landlord tenant law such as Pay the rent on time, Keep the rental property in safe and sanitary condition, Immediately notify the landlord of any minor or severe maintenance problems, Exterminate any insects that appeared after the tenant moved in, Leave the rental property in good condition besides for normal wear and tear. I feel the tenet is protected the most when the tenet can with hold rent from the land lord for not making repairs in a timely manor.

The covenant signed by Mr. Guy will not be enforceable due to the unreasonable terms cited. The covenant’s eighty-mile radius is too large and outweighs the damages Pretentious Petit Four Bakery might sustain.