Sowell-Law PLLC

At issue in Bafna v Echo Valley Condominium Association (unpublished opinion of the Michigan Court of Appeals) was an owner’s right to inspect condominium association records. The owner requested to inspect seven records, but the Association denied the requests. The owner filed suit. The Association defended on the basis that the co-owner had not stated a proper purpose, as required by MCL 450.2487, for the requests. The court found that the Plaintiff’s requests, although unclear, stated a proper purpose and entered judgment for the Plaintiff.

On appeal, the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed, finding that it was proper for the trial court to review the requests for records in light of the allegations made in Plaintiff’s complaint, which helped clarify Plaintiff’s requests. The court affirmed that “proper purpose” is a relatively low bar; in so holding, the court stated “we can perceive no legitimate reason why any corporation would find it permissible to withhold its corporate Board meeting minutes from one of its shareholders/members."

In Ursuy v Yassin, an unpublished Michigan Court of Appeals opinion, Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming he executed a lease with defendants but was evicted pursuant to a judgment entered in an eviction case naming only another tenant “and all other occupants." The defendants moved for summary disposition arguing that the prior eviction judgment barred the present lawsuit. Although the Plaintiff acknowledged that he had been living there, had actual notice of the eviction proceedings, and did not participate, he claimed he was wrongfully evicted because he was not specifically named in the case. The trial court agreed and the Plaintiff appealed.

The Court of Appeals held that the second case was barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel. The gravamen of his complaint was that his possessory interest in the property was interfered with by the Defendants in violation of Michigan’s Anti-Lockout Statute, MCL 600.2918. However, that statute grants a defense if the owner is acting pursuant to a court order. Because the prior case determined who was entitled to possession of the property, because Plaintiff was an occupant of the property with actual knowledge of the proceedings but declined to intervene or participate, and because Plaintiff did not appeal the possession judgment in the earlier proceedings, he was collaterally estopped from proceeding in the second case.

In Lakeside Estates Condominium Property Owners Association v Sugar Springs Dvelopment Company, an unpublished opinion from the Michigan Court of Appeals, the developer established a condominium project in the 1990s and construction begain in 1998. The developer recorded several amendments purporting to extend the deadline to add or construct additional units, but 12 units were not constructed within 10 years of commencement of construction. The developer attempted to construct the remaining 12 units in 2019 and the Association sued, claiming that the units had reverted to general common elements under the version of MCL 559.167 in existence from 2000 to 2016. The trial court granted summary disposition and the developer appealed.

The court of appeals held that it was bound by the then-existing version of MCL 559.167 and the published decision of Cove Creek Condo Assn v Vistal land & Home Dev, LLC, discussed here. The court also considered and rejected an argument that the lapse of these units to general common elements was a taking, relying on the Rafaeli decision. The court held that it was the developer’s failure to act, not any action of the state, which caused its property rights to lapse.