Most condominium and homeowners associations rely on deed restrictions that require homeowners to obtain approval before making exterior alterations to their property. These architectural control provisions are designed to preserve neighborhood character and protect property values. Disputes frequently arise when homeowners proceed with improvements without obtaining the required approval. However, a different issue arises when a condominium or homeowners association itself fails to create the body responsible for granting that approval. In Stuart v Chawney, 454 Mich 200; 560 NW2d 336, the Michigan Supreme Court addressed whether a homeowners association could enforce architectural restrictions when it never established the required Architectural Control Committee (“ACC”). As discussed below, this decision provides important guidance on the limits of condominium and homeowners association enforcement authority when required procedures are not in place.
Disputes of the HOA’s Architectural Control Committee
In Stuart v Chawney, the homeowners lived in a subdivision subject to recorded deed restrictions that required approval from an Architectural Control Committee before any construction or exterior improvements could be made. Despite this requirement, no Architectural Control Committee was ever formed by the homeowners association or the developer.
A dispute arose when the defendants planned to build a home in the subdivision that was not compatible or harmonious with the existing homes, and without obtaining proper approval. A group of homeowners sought to enforce the deed restrictions and challenge the unapproved improvement by preventing the defendants from proceeding with construction. The trial court found in favor of the defendants and held that neither the plaintiffs nor the other subdivision lot owners constituted the ACC contemplated in the deed restrictions. The trial court also found that the plaintiffs failed to take the proper action under the deed restrictions to protect their interests. The plaintiffs appealed the trial court’s decision, and the Court of Appeals found that, although the plaintiffs did not constitute a properly formed ACC, that was irrelevant because each homeowner possessed an individual cause of action to enforce the deed restrictions that ran with the land and were binding on the defendants. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision and remanded the case for proceedings consistent with its decision.
Following the decision of the Court of Appeals, the defendants appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court and requested that the Court reverse the decision and reinstate the trial court’s decision. The central issue before the Michigan Supreme Court became whether the defendants could be held in violation of the deed restrictions when the required approval body, the ACC, did not exist.
Absence of an Architectural Control Committee Rendered Deed Restrictions Unenforceable
The Michigan Supreme Court held that the architectural approval requirement was unenforceable because the Architectural Control Committee had never been established. The Court emphasized that restrictive covenants must be enforced as written. Because the deed restrictions specifically required approval from an ACC, and no such committee existed, there was no mechanism for compliance. Further, the Court noted that this was not an instance in which the defendants completely disregarded the deed restrictions, but rather, had sought approval from a neighboring association for the construction of the home, which was granted.
As a result, the Court concluded that the plaintiffs could not penalize the defendants for failing to obtain approval from a non-existent committee. The absence of the ACC effectively prevented enforcement of the architectural control provision, and the trial court’s decision in favor of the defendants was reinstated.
Impact of Failing to Follow Required HOA Procedures
The decision highlights that homeowners associations must strictly comply with their own governing documents in order to enforce them. Even where a homeowners or condominium association has a legitimate interest in regulating exterior modifications, failing to establish required procedures, such as an ACC, can undermine its ability to enforce those restrictions.
Importantly, the Court’s reasoning reflects Michigan’s broader approach to restrictive covenants: ambiguities or enforcement gaps are generally resolved in favor of the free use of property. When a homeowners or condominium association does not follow its own processes, courts are unlikely to step in to fill those gaps.
Key Takeaways for Condominium and Homeowners Associations
The Michigan Supreme Court’s decision in Stuart v Chawney, 454 Mich 200; 560 NW2d 336, provides important lessons for condominium and homeowners associations and their boards:
- Architectural Control Committees Must Be Properly Established. If your governing documents require an ACC, the homeowners association must formally create and maintain that committee before attempting to enforce approval requirements.
- Failure to Follow Procedures Can Bar Enforcement. Homeowners associations cannot rely on informal processes or substitute decision-makers if the deed restrictions specify a particular approval structure.
- Homeowners May Have Defenses to Enforcement. Where a homeowners or condominium association has not complied with its own governing documents, homeowners may challenge enforcement actions based on those deficiencies.
Need Guidance on Architectural Control Enforcement?
If your condominium or homeowners association has questions about architectural control provisions, committee formation, or enforcing deed restrictions, Hirzel Law’s experienced legal counsel can help! It is important to ensure that your procedures align with your governing documents, as the proper structure and compliance are essential to preserving both your enforcement rights and the character of your community.
