In Weatherstone Condo. Assn v Stoitsaides, an unpublished Michigan Court of Appeals opinion, the Defendants purchased their condominium unit in 2013 and rented it out, providing the association with a copy of the lease which expired by its own terms in 2015. In 2016, the condominium bylaws were amended to add leasing restrictions. In relevant part, the amended bylaws provided that "In the event of a sale or transfer of ownership of a leased Unit, or in the event such a Unit is no longer being leased or held out for lease, all automatic rights to lease that Unit shall terminate and no further leasing of the Unit shall take place without first obtaining the written approval of the Board of Directors in compliance with these provisions.” Despite repeated requests, the Defendants never provided the association with any other leases. Believing that the Defendants were again leasing the unit, the association filed suit asking for a declaration that it could evict any occupants who were not co-owners, for an injunction prohibiting defendants from violating the leasing restrictions, for a judgment for accrued fines and administrative fees, and for attorney fees and costs. The association moved for summary disposition on the basis there was no genuine issue of fact that the Defendants were not in compliance with the amendment or the leasing rules, and the trial court granted the association judgment. The defendants appealed.
The Court of Appeals affirmed. However, the opinion makes it clear that the association won only because the Defendants failed to support their arguments on appeal with either analysis or citation to relevant authority. In a footnote, the court also chided Plaintiff for not having offered several important exhibits into the trial court record, and chided the trial court for not having provided any analysis in its ruling.
The MI Condominium Act provides, in MCL 559.212(1), after the transitional control date, a condominium association may amend leasing restrictions by vote of the co-owners, but states that any such amendment “shall not affect the rights of any lessors or lessees under a written lease otherwise in compliance with this section and executed before the effective date of the amendment….” While it appears that there may have been a time period after the amendment was approved that Defendants’ unit was not leased, the record is simply not clear. This case has little, if any, persuasive value.