On November 28, 2017, Senator Peter MacGregor introduced Senate Bill 663, which would criminalize a fake request for an emotional support animal or service animal. Requests for emotional support animals and service animals continue to increase under the Federal Fair Housing Act and the Michigan Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act, MCL 37.1101 et seq. While a legitimate request for an emotional…
Read More →
Vidolich v Saline Northview Condominium Association, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued December 5, 2017 (Docket No. No. 334579), involved a lengthy battle between Vidolich, a co-owner in the Northview Condominium, and the Saline Northview Condominium Association (the “Association”). Vidolich was a member of the Association’s board until he resigned over a procedural dispute and he was the…
Read More →
As we previously discussed on September 21, 2017, in Michigan Court of Appeals Rules in Favor of HOA on Short-Term Rental Ban, Michigan courts have consistently held that short-term rentals violate “residential use” and “non-commercial use” restrictions contained in restrictive covenants. On November 30, 2017, in Eager v Peasley, et. al., published opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued November 30,…
Read More →
In Walters Beach Condominium Association v Home-Owners Insurance Company, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued November 16, 2017 (Docket No. 335172), the Michigan Court of Appeals held that water damage caused by construction defects may be covered under a condominium association’s insurance policy. At issue was a rain storm caused water damage to 4 units in the Walters…
Read More →
UPDATE: This opinion was subsequently reversed by the Michigan Supreme Court on July 24, 2019 in a 5-2 decision. A copy of the Supreme Court's opinion can be found here.In Thiel v Goyings, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued August 8, 2017 (Docket No. 333000), the Michigan Court of Appeals held that the construction of a partially prefabricated…
Read More →
If restrictive covenants apply to more than 250 lots or parcels of real property in a single development and the law of this state allows the owners of the real property to amend, reaffirm, or repeal the restrictive covenants, the owner of a lot or parcel that is subject to the restrictive covenants may consent to amend, reaffirm, or repeal…
Read More →
