Can a Michigan Condominium Association Remove an Aggressive Dog Without Notice?

Disputes involving the enforcement of condominium deed restrictions and restrictive covenants can raise serious questions about the rights of individual condo unit owners (formally referred to as co-owners) and how restrictions within condominium governing documents should be interpreted and applied, especially when those restrictions are being used as a means to remove a co-owner’s dog. In Springfield v. Deer Run Estates Condominium Association, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued August 15, 2025 (Docket No. 368044), 2025 WL 2014954, the Michigan Court of Appeals examined whether a Michigan condominium association violated its own Bylaws by ordering co-owners to remove their dogs without first providing notice and a hearing. The trial court ruled in favor of the  condo association and dismissed the former co-owners’ claims. The former co-owners appealed, and the Michigan Court of Appeals reversed the ruling in part, holding that the former co-owners had a valid claim for breach of contract against the Association for failing to provide them with notice and a hearing before demanding removal of their dogs. As discussed below, this case highlights key procedural requirements that Michigan condominium and homeowners associations may have to follow when exercising the authority to remove animals from their communities.

 

Background: The Neighborhood Dog Dispute

James and Ambrosia Springfield were co-owners of a unit in the Deer Run Estates Condominium in Michigan. The couple owned two Rottweilers, which had previously been the subject of complaints from neighbors. In February 2023, the Rottweilers escaped from the Springfields’ yard and attacked a neighbor’s dog, which resulted in a scratch on the dog’s nose and a rash on the neighbor’s knee. Following the incident, the condominium association’s Board of Directors notified the Springfields that, due to ongoing safety concerns, they were required to remove or rehome their dog, or euthanize them, within 20 days. The Association’s Board stated that they had considered written and oral feedback from other residents in mandating this action against the Springfields. The Springfields requested a hearing to dispute the decision, but the Board refused to grant this request. Rather than comply with the Association’s request, the Springfields sold their unit and moved away.

The Springfields later filed a lawsuit against the Association for breach of contract and selective enforcement, seeking an award of damages based on the Association’s decision to refuse the Springfields an opportunity to defend against the alleged violation at a hearing and for engaging in breed discrimination by selectively enforcing the condominium bylaws against the Springfields’ Rottweilers. In response to the Springfields’ lawsuit, the Association filed a motion for summary disposition (a motion to end a lawsuit before resorting to trial). The trial court agreed with the Association and granted summary disposition in its favor. The Springfields appealed.

 

The Court of Appeals Holds That a Hearing is Required Before Removal of Dogs

The main issue in this case was whether the Association’s Condominium Bylaws required that the Springfields be given the opportunity to appear before the Board of Directors prior to the enforcement of a penalty, which in this case was the removal of the Rottweilers. Section 7.05(f) of the Association’s Condominium Bylaws stated that the Association “may, without liability to the owner of the animal, remove or cause any animal to be removed from the Project which it determines to be in violation of, or which repeatedly violated, the restrictions imposed by this subsection or any rule adopted by the Association.” Section 7.05(f) further provided that a hearing must be held before assessing co-owners for damage caused by their animals.

The Association’s Condominium Bylaws also provided in Section 12.01 that a co-owner would be held responsible for “such violations whether they occur as a result of his or her personal actions or the actions of the Co-owner’s family, pet, guest, tenant or any other person admitted through such Co-owner to the Condominium Project.” Section 12.02 of the Condominium Bylaws further explained that “[u]pon any such violation being alleged by the Board, the following procedures will be followed,” which included notification by first-class mail or personal delivery and, most significantly, providing an opportunity to appear at a hearing before the Board. Finally, Section 12.02 of the Condominium Bylaws specifically provided that:

The offending Co-owner shall have an opportunity to appear before the Board and offer evidence in defense of the alleged violation. The appearance before the Board shall be at its next scheduled meeting or at a special meeting called for such matter, but in no event shall the Co-owner be required to appear less than ten (10) days from the date of service of the notice.

The trial court found that, based on the language of Section 7.05(f) alone, no hearing was required in situations where the Michigan Condominium Association was only seeking to remove an animal. The trial court reasoned that under the clear language of Section 7.05(f), a hearing was only required where the co-owner was being assessed damages caused by their animal. The Court of Appeals, however, found that Sections 7.05(f), 12.01, and 12.02 of the Condominium Bylaws had to be read in conjunction with one another. Specifically, the Court found that under the clear and unambiguous language of the Condominium Bylaws, the Association was required to provide the Springfields with an opportunity to appear before the Board of Directors to defend the allegations about their Rottweilers prior to removal.

 

Breed Restrictions Can Be Included Within a Michigan Condominium Association’s Governing Documents

The Springfields also alleged that the Association selectively enforced the Condominium Bylaws by allowing other residents to violate pet-related provisions without similar consequences. The Springfields claimed that the Association engaged in breed discrimination by unfairly targeting their Rottweilers while ignoring violations by other co-owners of other large breeds. The Court of Appeals, however, found that the Springfields had not cited any binding Michigan law or statute that recognized a selective enforcement cause of action prohibiting breed discrimination by a Michigan condominium association, or otherwise prohibiting selective enforcement of Condominium and HOA Bylaws.

Although the Court of Appeals found that the condominium governing documents required a hearing before the dogs were removed, nothing prevented the condominium association from taking enforcement actions against breeds, such as Rottweilers, that are perceived as more aggressive and potentially dangerous.

 

Best Practices for Michigan Condominium Associations When Enforcing Restrictive Covenants

The Court of Appeals’ decision in Springfield v. Deer Run Estates, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued July 17, 2025 (Docket No. 368044), 2025 WL 2014954, underscores the importance of strict compliance with the procedural requirements within your condominium association’s governing documents. While your condo or homeowners association may have valid safety concerns for enforcing pet restrictions, failure to follow notice and hearing requirements may open the door to liability. Michigan Condominium Associations should take note of the following best practices prior to enforcement action:

• Provide Notice and an Opportunity to Be Heard. Condominium and homeowners associations must adhere to the procedures set forth in the condominium governingdocuments before imposing penalties or requiring corrective action. Avoiding important procedural steps outlined in your documents, even in an urgent situation where there are safety concerns, can create a risk of litigation.
• A Hearing May Be Required For Penalties Other Than Fines. Most Michigan condominium associations’ governing documents only require a hearing in situations where a fine is being imposed, as this follows the statutory language set out in the Michigan Condominium Act, MCL 555.206. However, as this case demonstrates, a hearing may also be required for the imposition of other penalties, such as removal, if your documents provide for it. Getting a formal opinion from an experienced community association attorney is crucial before taking any enforcement actions to ensure all procedural requirements are being met.
• Procedures Should be Followed Regardless of the Breed of Dog. Although the Court in this case indicated that breed discrimination is permissible within condominium and homeowners associations’ governing documents, this does not preclude you from following the process outlined within your condominium’s governing documents before taking enforcement actions, including providing notice and a hearing.

 

Need Help Enforcing Your Condominium Bylaws?

If your Michigan condominium or homeowners association is navigating difficult enforcement decisions or needs help interpreting its deed restrictions and restrictive covenants, contact Hirzel Law, PLC. Our experienced community association attorneys can help provide guidance on compliance, enforcement, and the procedural requirements your association must follow before requesting or mandating corrective action.