When Are Michigan HOAs Liable for Flooding and Drainage Problems

Michigan Court Limits HOA Liability for Flooding Claims

Flooding disputes are among the most fact-intensive and emotionally charged conflicts facing homeowners associations. When water ends up where it should not, the instinct is to find someone to blame: the HOA, a neighboring owner, or a governmental entity. But a recent decision from the Michigan Court of Appeals, Pickthorn v Oakland County Board of County Road Commissioners Pickthorn v Oakland County Board of County Road Commissioners, Docket No. 371821, 2026 WL 49403 (Mich. Ct. App., February 20, 2026), underscores the critical reality for community association boards that not every drainage problem creates legal liability.

In Pickthorn, the Court drew a firm line between design issues and maintenance obligations, rejected expansive theories of liability, and clarified the limits of both governmental and homeowners association exposure in stormwater disputes. For homeowners associations, the case offers practical guidance on how courts analyze drainage claims and how to avoid costly litigation over conditions that may not create legal responsibility.

 

HOA Dispute Over Culverts and Flooding

In Pickthorn, the plaintiffs owned residential property that experienced recurring flooding, which they attributed to nearby drainage infrastructure associated with a county road. Specifically, the dispute focused on a series of culverts that carried stormwater under and around the road. The plaintiffs alleged that these culverts altered the natural flow of water and caused water to accumulate and back up onto their property during rain events.

The culverts at issue included both older structures that were no longer actively maintained and others that remained part of the existing drainage system. The plaintiffs contended that some culverts had been abandoned or left in place despite no longer serving their intended function, while others were allegedly undersized or inadequate to handle stormwater volume. According to the plaintiffs, these conditions resulted in repeated flooding and damage to their property.

In addition to the Oakland County Road Commission (“Road Commission”), the plaintiffs also brought claims against North Potomac Green Property Owners Association (“Association”), a Michigan homeowners association, asserting that it bore some responsibility for drainage conditions affecting the property. The claims were based on theories including trespass and inverse condemnation, with the plaintiffs alleging that the defendants’ actions or failures to act caused water to be directed onto their land and diminished the value and use of their property. The key issue before the Court was not whether flooding occurred, but whether any defendant owed a legal duty tied to the culverts and whether that duty had been breached.

 

Court of Appeals Decision

1. Governmental Immunity Bars Claims Based on Culvert Design and Lack of Control

On appeal, the Court of Appeals held that the Road Commission was entitled to governmental immunity under the Michigan Governmental Tort Liability Act, MCL 691.1407, because the plaintiffs’ claims did not fall within the highway exception set forth in MCL 691.1402(1). The Court reasoned that the exception imposes a duty to maintain highways in reasonable repair for public travel and does not include a duty to design or correct defects. The Court further reasoned that the plaintiffs’ theory that the culverts were undersized or improperly configured was characterized as a design defect claim, which is not actionable under the highway exception.

Additionally, the Court emphasized that certain culverts at issue were no longer under the Road Commission’s jurisdiction or control and were therefore effectively abandoned. Because duty depends on control, the absence of jurisdiction over those culverts meant no legal obligation existed. Accordingly, the Court concluded that the Road Commission could not be held liable for conditions tied to those structures.

2. No Evidence of a Failure to Maintain the Drainage System

The Court of Appeals further held that, even with respect to culverts still in use, the plaintiffs failed to present evidence of defective maintenance. The Court found no proof that the culverts were clogged, damaged, or otherwise not functioning as intended. Instead, the record indicated that the drainage system was operating consistently with its design.

The Court rejected the plaintiffs’ reliance on generalized allegations of flooding, explaining that the mere occurrence of water accumulation does not establish a breach of the duty to maintain. Without concrete evidence linking the flooding to a specific maintenance failure, the plaintiffs’ claims could not survive. As a result, the Court determined that summary disposition in favor of the Road Commission was warranted.

3. Inverse Condemnation Claim Fails for Lack of Causation

The Court of Appeals also dismissed the plaintiffs’ inverse condemnation claim, holding that they failed to establish the required elements. The Court explained that such a claim requires proof of affirmative government action that is a “substantial cause” of the alleged decline of the property’s value.

Here, the Court found no evidence that any action by the Road Commission directly caused the flooding or constituted an abuse of governmental power directed at the plaintiffs’ property. The Court explained that the plaintiffs relied on the same insufficient evidence used to support their governmental immunity arguments. With respect to the active culverts, the record did not establish any connection between those structures, the Road Commission, and the flooding.

4. Trespass Claim Against the HOA Fails Absent Intentional Conduct

The Court of Appeals held that the trespass claim against the homeowners association could not proceed. The Court emphasized that, under Michigan law, trespass requires intent to direct water onto the property of another:

Generally speaking, actionable trespass requires “simply an intent to be at the place on the land where the trespass allegedly occurred.” Mack v Natural Way, Inc, ___ Mich App ___, ___; ___ NW3d ___ (2025) (Docket No. 367998); slip op at 4 (quotation marks and citation omitted). While the reason underlying the alleged intrusion is “irrelevant,” the defendant must intend “to enter onto” the property in question. Id. Thus, “[i]f the intrusion was due to an accident caused by negligence or an abnormally dangerous condition, an action for trespass is not proper.”

Here, the plaintiffs’ theory against the homeowners association was premised almost entirely on a failure-to-maintain argument. They alleged that the homeowners association owned a drainage easement on their property and had an obligation to maintain it in a way that would prevent flooding.

The Court found these allegations deficient for two independent reasons. First, the plaintiffs neither alleged concrete facts establishing that ownership nor defined the scope of any maintenance obligation, nor did they clearly explain how any failure to maintain the easement caused excess water to intrude onto their property.

Second, and more importantly, the plaintiffs failed to allege or establish the homeowners association took affirmative steps to direct water onto their land. Instead, the claim was based on allegations that the homeowners association failed to maintain drainage areas. The Court concluded that inaction or negligence is insufficient to establish trespass because there must be intent to cause the intrusion. Since the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate such intent, the Court held that the HOA was entitled to dismissal of the claim.

 

Key Takeaways for Michigan Homeowners Associations

A central theme in Pickthorn is that liability for drainage infrastructure depends on ownership, control, and whether there is an obligation to maintain common elements or common areas. This case highlights several key considerations for homeowners associations:

1. Maintenance responsibilities should be clearly defined in governing documents. Ambiguity regarding who is responsible for culverts, drains, and other infrastructure can lead to disputes and potential liability.
2. Homeowners associations should consistently document maintenance efforts as regular inspections, maintenance records, and prompt responses to reported issues can provide critical protection if a dispute arises.
3. Engaging qualified experts early is essential. Drainage issues are highly technical, and expert analysis can help determine whether a problem is related to design or maintenance, as well as identify the true source of water flow.

 

Conclusion: Liability Does Not Flow as Easily as Water

Although Pickthorn arises from a dispute about culverts and flooding, its implications extend far beyond drainage issues. The case is ultimately about the limits of legal responsibility grounded in control, maintenance obligations, causation, and intent.

For homeowners associations, the lessons are clear. Responsibility is defined by control, not proximity. Liability depends on maintenance failures rather than design shortcomings. Claims require proof of causation rather than assumptions based on the existence of damage. And intentional conduct remains a key element in tort claims like trespass.

While water may continue to follow unpredictable paths, Pickthorn makes one thing certain: liability will not follow unless the law clearly requires it. Community associations that clearly define maintenance responsibilities, document their actions, and seek expert input when drainage issues arise will be in a far stronger position to avoid liability and defend claims.

If your homeowners association is facing a drainage dispute or needs guidance on defining maintenance responsibilities, contact the experienced Michigan community association lawyers at Hirzel Law, PLC.