MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS RULES THAT CO-OWNER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PRE-EXISTING BYLAW VIOLATIONS AFTER PURCHASING CONDOMINIUM UNIT

MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS RULES THAT CO-OWNER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PRE-EXISTING BYLAW VIOLATIONS AFTER PURCHASING CONDOMINIUM UNIT

by | Aug 1, 2019 | Bylaws, Condo and HOA Cases, Condominium Document Enforcement, Master Deed, Michigan Condominium Act, Michigan Condominium Attorney, Michigan Condominium Lawyer, Rules and Regulations

Kevin Hirzel, Brandan Hallaq and Kayleigh Long of Hirzel Law, PLC represented the Fox Pointe Association in this case. In Fox Pointe Association v Ryal, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued July 23, 2019 (Docket No. 344232), the Michigan Court of...
RESIDENTIAL USE V. NON-RESIDENTIAL USE IN MICHIGAN CONDOMINIUMS

RESIDENTIAL USE V. NON-RESIDENTIAL USE IN MICHIGAN CONDOMINIUMS

by | Jul 9, 2019 | Board of Directors, Bylaws, Condo and HOA Cases, Condominium Document Enforcement, Construction, Deed Restrictions, Michigan Business Attorney, Michigan Condominium Lawyer, Michigan HOA Attorney, Property Managers, Restrictive Covenants, Zoning

In Michigan, many condominium documents contain a limitation that a Unit may be used for “residential purposes” only. Historically, an owner or the developer of a parcel of property could impose reasonable building, use, and occupancy restrictions on a parcel of...
WXYZ DETROIT INTERVIEWS KEVIN HIRZEL ON THE THE DEBATE OVER HOA’S

WXYZ DETROIT INTERVIEWS KEVIN HIRZEL ON THE THE DEBATE OVER HOA’S

by | Jun 21, 2019 | Board of Directors, Bylaws, Condo and HOA Assessments, Condo and HOA Cases, Landlord/Tenant, Master Deed, Michigan HOA Attorney, Michigan Real Estate Attorney, Rules and Regulations

WXYZ Detroit (Channel 7) recently interviewed Kevin Hirzel regarding the debate over HOA’s.  The interview discusses the pros and cons of Homeowner’s Associations, what you need to know before entering into binding agreements with your association and how your day to...
Michigan Court rules that Homeowners Association did not violate Fair Housing Act in refusing fence for emotional support and service dogs

Michigan Court rules that Homeowners Association did not violate Fair Housing Act in refusing fence for emotional support and service dogs

by | Jun 19, 2019 | Board of Directors, Bylaws, Condo and HOA Cases, Condominium Document Enforcement, Deed Restrictions, Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Emotional Support Animals, Fair Housing Act, Michigan Condominium Attorney, Michigan Condominium Lawyer, Restrictive Covenants

In Fox Bay Civic Assn, Inc v Creswell, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued May 30, 2019 (Docket No. 343384), the Michigan Court of Appeals held that a homeowners association could enforce its deed restrictions banning fences and that a disabled owner...
Court rules that the Michigan Condominium Act permits bylaws to allow for an Association to recover attorney’s fees for defending a lawsuit

Court rules that the Michigan Condominium Act permits bylaws to allow for an Association to recover attorney’s fees for defending a lawsuit

by | Apr 19, 2019 | Bylaws, Condo and HOA Cases, Condominium Document Amendments, Condominium Document Enforcement, Master Deed, Michigan Condominium Attorney, Michigan Condominium Lawyer

In Stadler v Fontainebleau Condominiums Association, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued April 11, 2019 (Docket No. 343303), the Michigan Court of Appeals held that the plain language of the condominium bylaws permitted the condominium association to...
HOA violates the Fair Housing Act by denying a service animal in the clubhouse

HOA violates the Fair Housing Act by denying a service animal in the clubhouse

by | Apr 5, 2019 | Board of Directors, Condo and HOA Cases, Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Director and Officer Liability, Emotional Support Animals, Fair Housing Act, Michigan Condominium Attorney, Michigan Condominium Lawyer

In Sanzaro v Ardiente Homeowners Association, et. al., Docket No. 2:11-CV0-1143-RFB-CWH, 2019 WL 1049380 (D Nev, March 5, 2019), a federal court imposed a judgment of $350,000 in compensatory damages, $285,000 in punitive damages and awarded the plaintiffs attorney’s...