In condominiums with marinas, disputes often arise over who controls access to shared amenities, such as boat slips, and how those costs are allocated. In many cases, rights to control the marina, access to boat slips, and cost-sharing for marina amenities are disputed. In Harbor Isles Marine, LLC v Estate of Chodock, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued November 20, 2025 (Docket No. 367554), the Michigan Court of Appeals addressed a complex marina condominium dispute involving multiple associations, layered master deeds, and a successor developer attempting to enforce marina-related agreements. The decision provides important guidance for condominium associations and developers regarding the enforceability of marina agreements, including those governing boat slips and access to waterfront facilities.
Dispute Over Marina Fees and Boat Slip Access
In 1984, LaSalle’s Landing Development (LaSalle’s Landing) commenced construction of Anchors Way Marina, a private marina located on the St. Joseph River in St. Joseph, Michigan (the “Marina”). In connection with the development, LaSalle’s Landing recorded a master deed establishing St. Joe Isle Yacht Club, Inc. (SJIYC), a marina condominium community. The master deed included a shared recreational facilities agreement (SJIYC Recreation Agreement) governing marina amenities, including boat slips, dock access, and related marina facilities, along with marina access easements. The SJIYC Recreation Agreement was entered into between LaSalle’s Landing and SJIYC.
In 1988, LaSalle’s Landing assigned its development rights to Slabaugh, Inc. (Slabaugh), which subsequently recorded two additional master deeds creating two separate marina condominium associations: Moorings Condominium Association, Inc. (Moorings) and Danes Landing. The master deed for Moorings similarly included a shared recreational facilities agreement (Moorings Recreation Agreement) and marina access easements. The Moorings Recreation agreement was entered into between Slabaugh and Moorings. In 2014, Mikler Harbor Investments, LLC conveyed its rights and interests in the Marina to Harbor Isles Marine, LLC (“Harbor Isles”) by quitclaim deed.
Disputes later arose when Harbor Isles sought to increase fees associated with the maintenance and use of the shared marina facilities and further attempted to recover those increased fees retroactively, in excess of $300,000. After negotiations proved unsuccessful, both condominium associations withdrew from their respective recreation agreements. In response, Harbor Isles restricted access to the Marina by modifying gate and pedestrian entry systems and filed a lawsuit against the associations and certain officers and directors, including David Gould (Gould), asserting claims including breach of contract, slander of title, and breach of fiduciary duty.
Procedural History
The trial court granted summary disposition in favor of Gould because Harbor Isles failed to show Gould owed a fiduciary duty to Harbor Isles. The trial court also granted summary disposition in favor of SJIYC. The trial court reasoned that Harbor Isle did not articulate what SJIYC did to violate any of the binding documents and, as such, the complaint was deficient.
In addition, the trial court granted partial summary disposition in favor of defendant Moorings and entered an order permanently enjoining Harbor Isles from interfering with Moorings’ access easement. After a bench trial on the remaining claims between Harbor Isles and Moorings, the court granted an involuntary dismissal and entered final judgment in favor of Moorings. Harbor Isles appealed these rulings to the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Court of Appeals Decision
- Risks of Restricting Access to Marina and Boat Slips
On appeal, Harbor Isles argued the trial court erred by dismissing its case against Moorings. The Court of Appeals held Harbor Isles failed to prove it was entitled to enforce the Moorings Recreation Agreement. The Court reasoned that there was no evidence of a clear chain of title from the Slabaugh to Harbor Isles. The Court stated that there was no evidence as to what rights or interests Mikler Harbor had to convey to Harbor Isles at the time they executed the quitclaim deed, nor was there evidence that Mikler was a successor or assignee of the Slabaugh.
Moreover, Harbor Isles’ attempt to use general language in the deed as binding on easements did not substitute for proof of successor interests in the recorded agreement, nor did testimony offered at trial cure this title deficiency. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the trial court’s involuntary dismissal in favor of Moorings.
- The Condominium Association Representative did not have a Fiduciary Duty
The Court of Appeals upheld summary disposition for Gould on Harbor Isles’ breach of fiduciary duty claim. The Court found that Harbor Isles failed to plead facts showing a fiduciary relationship between it and Gould. The Court stated the only relevant connection was Gould’s appointment as a condominium association representative on the recreational facilities management committee, which did not support a fiduciary duty owed to Harbor Isles.
- Courts Will Enforce the Plain Language of Cost-Sharing Agreements
Likewise, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of Harbor Isles’ claims against SJIYC. The Court reasoned that, on its face, the complaint lacked specific allegations showing that SJIYC breached the relevant master deed, bylaws, or SJIYC Recreation Agreement. The Court further rejected Harbor Isles’ invitation to treat generalized admissions in the briefing as sufficient to state contract breaches without adequate supporting allegations or evidence.
Key Takeaways for Marina Condominium Associations
Marina condominiums present unique legal issues that are not typically found in standard residential condominium developments. Rights to boat slips, dock access, and shared waterfront facilities are often governed by separate agreements that originate with the developer, a successor developer, other condominium associations, or a master community association, and may not automatically transfer to subsequent owners. This case highlights several key considerations for condominium associations:
- A party seeking to enforce marina agreements must prove a clear chain of title and a valid assignment of developer rights.
- Agreements governing boat slips and marina facilities must be carefully reviewed to determine enforceability, as a cost-sharing agreement will be enforced based on their plain language.
- Condominium associations should ensure that fee increases tied to marina use are based on written agreements.
Conclusion
This decision reinforces that a party seeking to enforce recorded easements or related agreements must establish its rights through a clear and unbroken chain of title. A quitclaim deed, even when coupled with general references to recorded restrictions that run with the land, is insufficient to create enforceable rights, absent competent evidence of succession or a valid assignment. When rights to boat slips and shared marina facilities are not clearly assigned, they may be unenforceable. The case further underscores the importance of securing appropriate title insurance to identify and mitigate potential defects or gaps in title before disputes arise.
For condominium associations, the case serves as a reminder to carefully evaluate marina agreements before agreeing to new obligations or restrictions. For developers and marina operators, it highlights the need to ensure that any transfer of rights is properly documented and supported by a clear chain of title. Given the complexity of marina condominium developments, legal review of master deeds, assignments, and related agreements is critical to consult with a community association attorney and ensure that rights to boat slips and marina access are enforceable when disputes arise.
