Does Fixing an HOA Violation End a Lawsuit in Michigan?
Most condominium and homeowners associations have deed restrictions that govern the process that homeowners must follow to complete exterior alterations to their homes. Condominium and homeowners associations frequently enforce these deed restrictions to preserve neighborhood character and property values. Disputes often arise, however, when homeowners proceed with exterior changes before obtaining the required approval or meeting other requirements present in their community’s deed restrictions. In Dearborn Hills Civic Ass’n, Inc. v Bittar, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued November 20, 2025 (Docket Nos. 367782 and 367857), the Michigan Court of Appeals considered whether a homeowners association could continue to pursue its claims related to an unapproved architectural violation if the homeowners corrected the violation following the commencement of litigation. As discussed below, this decision provides valuable guidance on architectural control provisions and covenant enforcement for condominium and homeowners associations, as well as important considerations in situations where architectural violations are corrected after the violation has already occurred and litigation has been initiated.
Facts
The defendant homeowners owned a home in the Dearborn Hills Subdivision, which was subject to recorded deed restrictions enforced by the Dearborn Hills Civic Association (“DHCA”). The deed restrictions required homeowners to obtain prior written approval from DHCA before altering any building and limited exterior materials to stone, brick, or stucco unless wood siding was approved in writing by the association.
In 2021, after the defendant homeowners stucco siding began to deteriorate, they removed portions of the stucco and installed cedar siding without first obtaining approval from DHCA. When DHCA discovered the work done by the defendant homeowners, it issued a cease and desist letter. The defendant homeowners stopped the work on their home and sought approval of the project from the DHCA. DHCA denied approval for the project and commenced the litigation to enforce the deed restrictions.
DHCA brought numerous claims against the defendant homeowners related to the unapproved alterations. The defendant homeowners counterclaimed against DHCA, and both parties moved for summary disposition. During the litigation, the defendant homeowners ultimately removed the cedar siding. The trial court granted summary disposition in favor of the defendants on DHCA’s claims and in favor of DHCA on the counterclaims. DHCA appealed.
Replacement of Stucco Siding Constituted an “Alteration”
The primary issues on appeal concerned the trial court’s resolution of DHCA’s claims, particularly the trial court’s finding that the defendants did not violate the deed restrictions by altering their home without prior approval. The trial court found that the defendant homeowners had not violated the deed restrictions when it granted summary disposition in their favor. More specifically, the trial court found that the defendant homeowners did not alter their home because the cedar siding was only applied to 30% of one side of their home, and it could be removed in one day.
The Court of Appeals disagreed with the trial court’s conclusion that the siding replacement was not an alteration and did not violate the deed restrictions. The Court of Appeals found that replacing stucco with cedar siding materially changed the character and composition of the home’s exterior and therefore constituted an alteration that required prior approval. Notably, the Court of Appeals stated that although the alteration was relatively small, it did not make it any less significant. Since the defendants admitted they did not obtain approval, the Court vacated summary disposition in their favor on this claim and remanded it to the trial court for an entry of summary disposition in DHCA’s favor.
Impact of the Removal of an ACC Violation During Litigation
The Court of Appeals also found that the defendants’ removal of the cedar siding after the litigation was filed did not change the finding that the defendant homeowners had altered their home in violation of the deed restrictions. The Court held that DHCA could still establish a violation warranting relief, even though the violation was corrected during the litigation. The Court made it clear that compliance after the fact does not negate a prior violation of a deed restriction that requires approval before work begins. More specifically, the violation occurred when the alteration was made without authorization, and subsequent removal did not erase that violation or bar enforcement. The Court held that despite the defendants’ removal of the siding, DHCA could still obtain relief for the violation in the form of damages and declaratory relief.
Key Takeaways for Condominium and Homeowners Associations
The Court of Appeals’ decision in Dearborn Hills Civic Ass’n, Inc. v. Bittar highlights the importance of understanding your community’s architectural deed restrictions and your ability to enforce them.
- Material Exterior Changes Typically Require ACC Approval. Even limited or temporary exterior modifications may qualify as alterations if they change the character or composition of a home. Having an experienced condominium and homeowners association attorney carefully review your deed restrictions and approval requirements is crucial to ensure that the character of your community is preserved.
- Post-Violation Fixes Do Not Cure Violations of the Restrictive Covenants. Homeowners cannot avoid enforcement simply by undoing unapproved work after a dispute arises. Condominium and homeowners associations may still pursue enforcement and seek relief for violations that occurred without the appropriate approval.
Need Guidance on Architectural Control Enforcement?
If your condominium or homeowners association is facing architectural control issues, deed restriction enforcement questions, or concerns about how to handle post-violation corrections to architectural violations, contact Hirzel Law. Our experienced condominium and homeowners association lawyers can help ensure that enforcement decisions are made properly, that you get the relief you are entitled to, and that the character of your communities is preserved!
