Condominium Association’s Legal Duty to Co-Owners: Key Takeaways from Janini v. London Townhouses
Recently, the Michigan Supreme Court decided the case of Janini v London Townhouses Condominium Association, issued July 11, 2024 (Docket No. 164158), concluding that a co-owner of a condominium unit is an invitee under Michigan law if that person enters the common elements of the condominium, and due to this status, the condominium association owes the co-owner a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect the co-owner from dangerous conditions on the land. If the association violates its duty, the co-owner can file a premises liability lawsuit against the association.
Association Duty to Co-Owners on the Common Elements Before Janini
Prior to the Court’s Janini opinion, the Michigan Court of Appeals decided Francescutti v Fox Chase Condo Ass’n, 312 Mich App 640; 886 NW2d 891 (2015), which also concerned a condominium association’s duty to co-owners on the common elements. In Francescutti, the Court held that the injured co-owner plaintiff, who slipped and fell on an icy sidewalk, could not sustain a premises liability lawsuit against the defendant association. The Francescutti Court opined that because the plaintiff was a co-owner of the sidewalk, which is part of the condominium’s common elements, the plaintiff did not enter onto “the land of another” and was, therefore, not an invitee or licensee entitled to some degree of protection under Michigan tort common law to those who enter another’s land. The association, accordingly, did not owe any duty to the co-owner under a premises liability theory.
Janini Background
Plaintiffs Daoud and Feryal Janini (the “Plaintiffs”) own and reside in a condominium unit that is part of London Townhouses Condominiums in Westland, Michigan. On March 16, 2019, the Plaintiff Mr. Janini (“Mr. Janini”) walked outside of his unit into a common area of the condominium to throw garbage into a dumpster. Mr. Janini walked down a sidewalk, a common element within the condominium, which was covered in snow and ice. While walking on the sidewalk, Mr. Janini slipped and fell, hitting the back of his head against the sidewalk. His fall resulted in a brain injury.
On June 19, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a complaint against the Defendant London Townhouses Condominium Association (the “Association”) and alleged that the Association breached its duty to maintain the sidewalk by not timely removing the snow and ice from the sidewalk. Plaintiff Feryal Janini’s claim is a derivative loss of consortium claim. The trial court granted the Association’s motion for summary disposition and dismissed all of Plaintiffs’ claims except for the premises liability claim. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s order denying summary disposition to the Association on the premises liability claim relying on Francescutti. The Court reasoned that as Plaintiffs were “in possession” of the sidewalk, which is part of the condominium’s common elements, and were co-owners of the land, Mr. Janini was not on land that was in the possession of another when he slipped and fell. Accordingly, Mr. Janini was not a protected invitee or licensee and could not sue the Association for premises liability.
Janini Opinion
The Court began its analysis by acknowledging that condominium ownership is governed by the Michigan Condominium Act, MCL 559.101 et seq. (the “Condominium Act”). The condominium’s common elements are “the portions of the condominium project other than the condominium units.” MCL 559.103(7). If allowed under the condominium’s master deed, condominium co-owners may hold an undivided interest in the common elements. MCL 559.137.
The Court further acknowledged that the Condominium Act does not speak to a common law duty owed by a condominium association to condominium co-owners and provides only for an action for injunctive relief by a co-owner against the association to compel enforcement of the condominium’s governing documents (i.e., master deed and bylaws), MCL 559.207, or an action by a “person” or an association under MCL 559.215(1). The Court reasoned, however, that had the Legislature desired for MCL 559.207 and MCL 559.215(1) to be the co-owner’s exclusive remedies against the association and for associations to be immunized from tort liability, it could have said so in the language of the Condominium Act. In other words, the Condominium Act’s statutory remedies do not eliminate remedies available under common law.
As the Court held that the Condominium Act does not foreclose a co-owner’s action against a condominium association under Michigan’s common law, the Court next analyzed whether a special relationship exists between the co-owner and the association as the owner, occupier, or possessor of the land, such that the common law will impose a duty of care on the association. The Court found that the relationship between a condominium co-owner and a condominium association is often like that of a landlord and a tenant (i.e., the landlord is obligated to maintain an apartment building’s common elements and to keep areas outside of a tenant’s control reasonably safe; as a co-owner gives up control of the common elements to the association through agreeing to an association’s bylaws, an association has a duty to maintain the elements). The Court acknowledged that it had previously recognized that a special relationship exists between landlord and tenant with the tenants as the invitees of the landlord. The Court explained that invitee status is typically provided to persons invited to enter another’s property for business purposes (i.e., a landlord receives an economic benefit from a tenant) and that invitees are entitled to the highest level of protection under Michigan premises liability law with the land possessor owing to the invitee a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect the invitee from dangerous conditions on the land by making the premises safe and warning the invitee of known dangers.
As it found that the landlord-tenant relationship “mirrors” the association-co-owner relationship in the case, the Court reasoned that the Plaintiffs, as co-owners, are the invitees of the Association in the common elements of the condominium. The Court determined, specifically, that the Plaintiffs’ ability to purchase the condominium unit, along with their rights to use the common elements, are subject to the financial condition that they pay dues to the Association and relinquish their individual authority over the common elements to the Association through the Association’s bylaws. Plaintiffs and the Association are thus in a business relationship. Therefore, Mr. Janini, as an injured invitee under Michigan law, can maintain a premises liability lawsuit against the Association.
The Court reversed the judgment of the Michigan Court of Appeals and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.
Overturning of Francescutti
Janini overturned the Court of Appeals’ decision in Francescutti. The Court stated that the Court of Appeals erred by grounding its holding on the phrase “land of another.” The Court specified that the phrase “ land of another,” which was used in one of the Court’s prior opinions on which Francescutti relied, does not mean the same as the land of another owner and that the “land of another” phrase is consistent with the Court’s premises liability jurisprudence that to sustain a case a plaintiff must prove only that the land on which the plaintiff was injured is land over which another person or entity had possession and control and not, necessarily, ownership.
Conclusion
A co-owner on the condominium’s common elements is now classified as an invitee under Michigan law entitled to have the premises made safe and warnings of known dangers thereon by the condominium association. Relatedly, a condominium association now has a substantially greater duty of care towards a co-owner on the common elements. Although the association’s duty owed to invitees on the common elements, generally, has not changed, a co-owner may now file a premises liability lawsuit against its association for injuries sustained on the common elements thereby increasing the number of potential plaintiffs who could sue the association for insufficiently maintained and dangerous land.
Importantly, Janini has insurance coverage implications for condominium associations. With an increased potential for premises liability claims against condominium associations, associations may want to review their insurance policies and ensure there’s sufficient coverage protecting against such claims.
