This guide explains what Michigan law actually authorizes, how to read your governing documents to determine whether your rental restriction is enforceable, and what your board needs to do if the existing documents require updating. For guidance specific to your association’s documents and circumstances, contact the Michigan condominium and HOA attorneys at Szura & Delonis, PLC.

What Michigan Law Says About Rental Restrictions in Condominium Communities

The Statutory Foundation for Use Restrictions

Michigan condominium associations may regulate unit use through their recorded condominium documents, including the master deed and condominium bylaws, subject to the Condominium Act and the association’s amendment procedures. The practical complication is that not every rental restriction may have been properly adopted. Restrictions adopted without the required co-owner vote threshold are vulnerable to claims of procedural invalidity. And restrictions that were valid when adopted may face challenges if they were not consistently enforced.

Where Rental Restrictions Typically Appear: Bylaws, Master Deed, and Rules

Under Michigan condominium law, use restrictions, including rental restrictions, are most commonly found in the condominium bylaws, and bylaws are fully enforceable against all co-owners. The bylaws are recorded as part of the condominium documents at the county Register of Deeds and bind every co-owner as a condition of ownership. A properly adopted rental restriction in the bylaws carries the same legal weight as a provision in the master deed itself.

The distinction that does matter is between restrictions adopted through a co-owner vote — whether in the master deed or bylaws — and rules or regulations adopted by the board alone. Board-adopted rules occupy a different legal tier: they must be reasonable and consistent with the bylaws, but they did not go through the co-owner vote process and are more susceptible to challenge. A rental restriction adopted unilaterally by board resolution, without co-owner approval, is on weaker footing than one adopted through the amendment process the governing documents require. Before your board attempts to enforce a rental restriction of any kind, association counsel should confirm how the restriction was adopted and whether that process was consistent with the governing documents.

Rental Caps: How to Limit the Number of Rental Units in Your Association

How Rental Cap Percentages Work and Why They Matter

A rental cap provision restricts the total percentage of units that may be rented simultaneously. When a community reaches its cap, additional co-owners who wish to rent their units are prohibited from doing so until the rental percentage falls below the cap threshold. Many associations with rental caps maintain a waiting list: co-owners who wish to rent register with the association, and rental slots are allocated in order of registration when vacancies arise.

Rental caps also have significant practical implications beyond community character. FHA certification for condominium projects, which affects a co-owner’s ability to sell to buyers using FHA financing, requires that owner-occupancy rates meet specific thresholds. An association without a rental cap that drifts above the FHA investor-concentration threshold may find that its units become harder to sell and finance, reducing property values for all co-owners. Currently, as of 2026, no more than 50% of the units in the condominium project may be investor-owned or used as rentals. In other words, at least 50% of the units must be owner-occupied. (However, the required owner-occupancy level can be lowered to 35% [allowing up to 65% rentals/investor-owned units] if the project meets additional HUD criteria.)

The Waitlist Problem: What Happens When You Exceed the Cap

Boards that allow the rental percentage to exceed the cap, whether through informal tolerance or inadequate record-keeping, face two problems when they attempt to re-establish enforcement. First, co-owners who began renting in violation of the cap, or in reliance on the board’s non-enforcement, may argue that the board has waived the restriction or is estopped from enforcing it. Second, retroactively requiring existing renters to cease tenancies can raise its own fair housing and contractual complications. The cleanest approach is consistent enforcement from the moment a cap is adopted.

Short-Term Rentals and Airbnb: The Enforcement Crisis Michigan Boards Face

Why Pre-Platform Governing Documents Do Not Cover Short-Term Rentals

Governing documents drafted in the 1990s and early 2000s, which are a substantial number of the condominium documents for Metro Detroit communities, often did not contemplate platform-based short-term rentals. A bylaw that restricts units to “single-family residential use” may support a prohibition on short-term rentals in some interpretations, but that argument may not prevail when scrutinized by a court. A co-owner facing a fine for an Airbnb violation will argue that hosting guests in a private residence is residential use by definition. Whether that argument succeeds depends on how the specific restriction is worded and how Michigan courts have interpreted similar language.

Minimum Lease Term Provisions: Are They Enforceable?

The most defensible approach to short-term rental prohibition in Michigan condominiums is a minimum lease term provision. This is a requirement that all rentals must be for a minimum period, such as 60 or 90 days. This approach does not prohibit renting outright; it simply requires that rentals be of a duration inconsistent with nightly or weekly platform-based occupancy. Minimum lease term provisions are generally well-accepted in Michigan condominium practice as a reasonable use restriction, provided they are properly adopted. A provision requiring leases of at least 60 days, for example, effectively eliminates Airbnb and VRBO activity without requiring the association to police individual guest transactions.

Practice Note: An association that adopts a minimum lease term amendment should also require co-owners to provide copies of executed leases to the association and should authorize the board to request tenant identification information for security purposes. The amendment is more readily enforceable when it is paired with a lease registration requirement that gives the board visibility into rental activity before violations occur.

Enforcement Authority: Fines, Hearings, and the Due Process Requirement

MCL 559.206 and the Mandatory Hearing Before Enforcement

A Michigan condominium association that wishes to fine a co-owner for violating a rental restriction must comply with the procedural requirements of MCL 559.206, which provide for notice and a hearing before a fine is imposed. Issuing a fine without providing the co-owner with written notice of the violation and an opportunity to appear before the board (or a designated hearing panel) is a procedural error that can defeat the fine. For a detailed walkthrough of the notice and hearing process, see our article on Michigan condo fines, hearings, and due process.

The written violation notice must identify the specific provision the co-owner is alleged to have violated, state the proposed fine amount, and advise the co-owner of their right to request a hearing within the time period specified in the governing documents. Boards that want to create a deterrent against short-term rental violations should ensure that their fine schedule reflects meaningful amounts and that their hearing procedure is consistently followed.

The Selective Enforcement Trap

A board that enforces rental restrictions against some co-owners but ignores violations by others may face a selective enforcement defense in any subsequent litigation. Michigan courts have recognized selective enforcement as a basis for potentially voiding fines and injunctive orders. If your board is aware of multiple rental restriction violations, it must address them consistently. Enforcing against a co-owner who is renting to a long-term tenant while ignoring a neighbor’s active Airbnb listing is precisely the pattern that may erode the board’s position in litigation. The board’s enforcement decisions are entitled to deference under the Business Judgment Rule when they are applied consistently and in good faith.

Fair Housing Act Considerations Boards Should Not Ignore

Amending Your Governing Documents to Address Rental Restrictions

The Amendment Threshold Under MCL 559.190 and Your Bylaws

If your governing documents lack an adequate rental restriction, or if the existing restriction is ambiguously drafted or was not properly adopted, the solution is likely a governing document amendment. Amendment requirements for Michigan condominium documents are governed by the Condominium Act and the condominium’s own recorded documents. In many cases, amendments require approval by at least two-thirds of the co-owners eligible to vote, with mortgagee approval required only in specified circumstances. MCL 559.190 sets the statutory framework within which amendment procedures must operate. For a detailed treatment of the amendment process, see our guide to Michigan condominium bylaw amendments.

Grandfather Provisions and Existing Rental Arrangements

A rental restriction adopted by amendment raises a significant practical question: what happens to co-owners who were actively renting their units before the restriction was adopted? Michigan condominium practice, and basic fairness, generally supports including a “grandfather provision” that allows existing rental arrangements to continue until the current lease expires, while prohibiting new rental arrangements after the amendment’s effective date. Imposing an immediate restriction on an existing tenant’s occupancy may create legal risk and tends to generate the most opposition from co-owners during the amendment vote.

What the Amendment Must Say to Be Enforceable

A rental restriction amendment that will withstand challenge needs to be specific, unambiguous, and consistent with the rest of the governing documents. It should define “rental” with sufficient precision to capture the conduct the board intends to prohibit — including platform-based short-term arrangements. It should state the minimum lease term if one is required. We also counsel our clients that it should specify the enforcement mechanism, the fine schedule, and the hearing procedure. And it should be recorded at the County Register of Deeds to provide constructive notice to future purchasers.

Common Mistakes Michigan Boards Make Enforcing Rental Restrictions

Frequently Asked Questions About Michigan Condominium Rental Restrictions

Can a Michigan condominium association completely prohibit renting units?

Yes, provided the prohibition is adopted through the amendment procedure required by the governing documents — including the applicable co-owner vote threshold — and is recorded as part of the condominium documents. A total rental prohibition is a significant restriction on property rights and should be reviewed by association counsel before adoption to evaluate legal defensibility and Fair Housing implications.

Our governing documents say units must be used for “residential purposes only.” Does that ban Airbnb?

Not automatically. Michigan appellate decisions have often enforced residential-use, private-dwelling, and anti-commercial-use restrictions against short-term rentals, but outcomes still depend on the exact covenant language and the facts. A co-owner will argue that hosting guests in a private residence is residential use by definition. The stronger and more defensible approach is a specific minimum lease term provision, such as a 60-day minimum, that eliminates short-term rental activity without relying on ambiguous language. Boards relying on “residential use” language alone should consult association counsel before issuing fines.

Can a co-owner who was renting before we adopted a rental cap be grandfathered in?

Yes, and it is generally advisable to include a “grandfather provision” in any rental cap amendment. The provision should allow existing leases to run to their natural expiration and prohibit new rental arrangements after the amendment’s effective date. A grandfather provision reduces legal risk, generates less opposition during the co-owner vote, and is more equitable to co-owners who made financial decisions in reliance on the pre-existing rules.

What happens if the board has been inconsistently enforcing our rental restriction for years?

A long history of non-enforcement may create waiver and estoppel risks that must be assessed before the board resumes enforcement. The strongest approach is to issue a written notice to all co-owners announcing that the association will enforce the restriction going forward from a specific date, giving co-owners reasonable time to cure violations before fines begin. This resets the enforcement posture prospectively and reduces the waiver argument. Association counsel should be involved in designing this process.

Can the association fine a co-owner’s tenant for violating the rental restriction?

Typically, no. The association has no contractual relationship with tenants. Rental restriction enforcement runs against the co-owner, not the tenant. The co-owner is responsible for ensuring that any occupant of their unit complies with the governing documents. The board should direct all enforcement notices and fines to the co-owner of record and allow the co-owner to address the issue with their tenant through the terms of the lease.

Disclaimer: This article is intended for general educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The information provided does not create an attorney-client relationship. Michigan condominium board members, property managers, and associations with specific legal questions should consult qualified Michigan condominium and HOA counsel regarding their particular circumstances.

Protect Your Community — Contact Szura & Delonis, PLC

Michigan condominium rental restrictions are only as strong as the documents behind them and the process used to enforce them. If your board is dealing with short-term rental violations, considering a rental cap amendment, or needs a governing document review to determine whether your existing restrictions were properly adopted and are enforceable, the Michigan condominium and HOA attorneys at Szura & Delonis, PLC are ready to help. We represent condominium associations and HOAs throughout Oakland County, Wayne County, and Macomb County.

Call us at (248) 716-3600 or contact us online to schedule a consultation.

About the Author

Richard M. Delonis is a Michigan condominium and HOA lawyer at Szura & Delonis, PLC in Southfield (Metro Detroit). He advises association boards and community association managers on governance, rule enforcement, assessment collections, document amendments, and risk management, with a practical focus on helping boards reduce disputes and run defensible, well-documented processes.

The result is that a significant number of Michigan condominium communities in Oakland County and Wayne County are operating under governing documents that are legally outdated, internally inconsistent, or simply inadequate for the association’s current needs. For those Boards that recognize this problem and want to act responsibly, this will guide you through the legal process.

Why Michigan Condominium Bylaw Amendments Fail — and What the Law Actually Requires

How do you legally amend Michigan condominium bylaws? Amending Michigan condominium bylaws requires a two-thirds affirmative vote of all co-owners entitled to vote under MCL 559.190(2). The amendment must be preceded by at least 10 days’ written notice to co-owners, followed by recording of the executed amendment with the county Register of Deeds and delivery of a copy to every co-owner. In certain circumstances, first mortgagee approval is also required under MCL 559.190a.

The most common reason bylaw amendment efforts fail in Michigan is also the most preventable: boards either underestimate the legal complexity of the process or attempt to shortcut it. A board vote alone cannot amend material condominium bylaws — full stop. The Michigan Condominium Act, MCL 559.101 et seq., is unambiguous on this point, and Michigan courts willy enforce the statutory requirements regardless of the association’s good intentions or the practical urgency of the amendment.

Understanding the Document Hierarchy: What You’re Actually Amending

Before initiating any amendment process, boards must clearly identify which document they intend to amend. Each tier of the governing document hierarchy carries its own amendment procedure, legal authority, and practical difficulty.

Articles of Incorporation

The association’s Articles of Incorporation are filed with the Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (LARA) and governed by the Michigan Non-Profit Corporation Act, MCL 450.2101 et seq. Amendments to the Articles require co-owner action pursuant to MCL 450.2611 and must be filed with LARA to become effective. Boards operating under older Articles, particularly those containing anti-lawsuit provisions or voting restrictions that create operational problems, should work with Michigan condominium counsel to update this foundational document as part of any comprehensive document overhaul.

Master Deed

The Master Deed is the primary recorded instrument establishing the condominium project. In metro Detroit, it is recorded with the Oakland County Register of Deeds, Macomb County Register of Deeds, or Wayne County Register of Deeds, as applicable, and its amendment requires the same co-owner approval process applicable to Bylaws under MCL 559.190(2). Amendments to the Master Deed that involve physical characteristics of the project carry additional requirements under MCL 559.190(7).

Condominium Bylaws

The Bylaws govern the day-to-day administration of the association, addressing everything from board elections and assessment authority to enforcement procedures and co-owner rights. Under MCL 559.153, bylaws governing administration of a condominium project must be recorded, and any amendments must likewise be recorded with the Register of Deeds pursuant to MCL 559.191(a). The Bylaws are the focus of most Michigan condominium amendment efforts, and can often be the subject of most amendment disputes.

Rules and Regulations: The Board’s Domain

Unlike the Bylaws, Rules and Regulations are typically amended by a majority vote of the Board of Directors alone — no co-owner vote required — unless the Master Deed or Bylaws specify otherwise. This is a meaningful distinction: boards that want to address specific operational issues quickly may be able to do so through the Rules without a full bylaw amendment campaign. However, Rules cannot exceed the authority granted by the recorded documents and cannot impose greater restrictions than the Bylaws themselves authorize.

The Legal Framework: MCL 559.190 and the Material vs. Non-Material Distinction

Can a Michigan condo board amend the bylaws without a co-owner vote? A Michigan condominium board may amend governing documents without a co-owner vote only if the amendment does not materially alter or change the rights of co-owners or mortgagees, and only if the condominium documents contain a specific reservation of that amendment authority. Under MCL 559.190(1), non-material amendments, such as technical corrections or minor administrative updates, may proceed by board action alone where the reservation exists. Any amendment that materially affects co-owner rights requires the full 2/3 co-owner vote under MCL 559.190(2).

Non-Material Amendments: Board Authority with Proper Reservation

MCL 559.190(1) provides that condominium documents may be amended without co-owner or mortgagee consent if the amendment does not materially alter or change the rights of a co-owner or mortgagee, provided the documents contain a reservation of the right to amend for that purpose. In practice, this non-material amendment authority is narrow and boards should approach it conservatively. Michigan courts will examine materiality disputes carefully, and a board that mischaracterizes a material amendment as non-material to avoid the co-owner vote faces serious legal exposure — including the invalidation of the purported amendment.

Material Amendments: The 2/3 Co-Owner Vote Requirement

Most condominium document amendments require an affirmative vote of two-thirds of co-owners entitled to vote as of the date of the notice calling for the vote, not merely two-thirds of those present at the meeting. This is a critical and frequently misunderstood distinction. For purposes of MCL 559.190, the affirmative vote of two-thirds of co-owners means two-thirds of all co-owners entitled to vote as of the record date for the vote. An association with 100 units needs 67 affirmative votes — not 67% of the 40 co-owners who showed up to the annual meeting.

Equally important: any condominium document provision that requires more than a two-thirds co-owner vote to amend the Master Deed, Bylaws, or Condominium Subdivision Plan is void and superseded by MCL 559.190(2). Boards operating under older documents that purport to require 75% or 80% co-owner approval for amendments are not legally bound by that higher threshold, because the statute controls. This is a provision that Michigan condominium counsel can identify and address as part of a document audit.

The One Amendment That Requires 100% Consent

MCL 559.190(4) requires unanimous co-owner and mortgagee approval to change or eliminate the percentage of value assigned to each unit for purposes other than voting. For practical purposes, this is an amendment that Michigan associations infrequently attempt, because unanimous consent across an entire condominium community is an extraordinarily high bar. Boards considering any reallocation of common expense obligations or percentage-of-value structures should consult Michigan condominium counsel before proceeding.

When Mortgagee Approval Is Also Required: MCL 559.190a’s Seven Triggers

When does a Michigan condo bylaw amendment require mortgagee approval? Under MCL 559.190a(9), first mortgagee approval is required for seven categories of amendments: termination of the condominium project; changes to unit percentage-of-value formulas; reallocation of maintenance responsibilities from the association to individual co-owners; changes affecting insurance requirements; amendments to special declarant rights; restriction or expansion of leasing rights; and amendments requiring each affected mortgagee’s consent under MCL 559.190(4). Outside these seven categories, first mortgagee approval is generally not required for Michigan condominium bylaw amendments.

Associations will most often encounter the mortgagee approval requirement when shifting maintenance responsibilities from the association to co-owners, or when modifying leasing restrictions. When mortgagee approval is required, after two-thirds of co-owners approve the amendment, the association must mail ballots to the mortgagees, who have 90 days to respond. A mortgagee’s failure to respond is counted as approval under the statute.

In practice, this means the mortgagee approval process is manageable for most associations — the 90-day waiting period is the primary burden. The association does not need two-thirds of mortgagees to affirmatively vote yes; it merely needs to avoid two-thirds voting no within the 90-day window. Associations must maintain copies of all notices, proofs of mailing, and returned ballots for two years following the control date under MCL 559.190a(8).

Step-by-Step: The Legally Compliant Amendment Process in Michigan

Step 1 — Determine What You’re Amending and Why

Begin with a clear audit of the existing documents against the association’s current operational needs and any applicable legal requirements. What specific provisions are inadequate? What legal standard — the Condominium Act, the Fair Housing Act, or the Michigan Non-Profit Corporation Act — requires the change? Is the amendment to the Bylaws, the Master Deed, or both? Can the issue be addressed through a Rules and Regulations amendment instead? These threshold questions shape the entire process.

Step 2 — Engage Michigan Condominium Counsel to Draft the Amendment

This step is not optional for any material amendment. A poorly drafted amendment, one that is internally inconsistent with existing provisions, technically defective, or that inadvertently affects co-owner rights beyond the board’s intent, can create more problems than it solves. Counsel will also identify whether the proposed amendment triggers any of the seven MCL 559.190a mortgagee approval requirements.

Step 3 — Provide Proper Notice to Co-Owners

Co-owners must be notified of proposed amendments not less than 10 days before the amendment is recorded. Your Bylaws may require a longer notice period for the meeting at which the vote will be taken (commonly 10 to 21 days) and the meeting notice requirements under your documents and MCL 450.2404 apply alongside the statutory 10-day pre-recording notice. The notice should include the proposed amendment text, the date and location of the vote, and a clear explanation of the co-owner approval threshold required.

Step 4 — Hold the Vote and Achieve the Required Threshold

The co-owner vote should be conducted at a properly noticed meeting of the association. Votes taken outside of a properly convened meeting, such as through a petition circulated among co-owners, may be invalid unless the Articles of Incorporation expressly authorize action by written consent under MCL 450.2407(1), and the specific requirements of that statute are fully satisfied. The board must document the vote carefully: the total number of co-owners entitled to vote, the number voting in favor, the number opposed or abstaining, and confirmation that the two-thirds threshold was achieved. If the vote is taken at a scheduled meeting, it is very likely that the solicitation of proxies from co-owners will be extremely important in order to achieve the two-thirds vote requirement.

Step 5 — Conduct the Mortgagee Ballot Process (If Required)

If the amendment falls within one of the seven MCL 559.190a categories, the association must identify all first mortgagees of record as of the control date (the date co-owners approved the amendment), mail ballots with the required statutory content within a reasonable period, and wait 90 days for mortgagee responses. Non-responses count as approvals. Maintain all proofs of mailing and returned ballots for the required two-year period.

Step 6 — Record the Amendment with the Register of Deeds

When does a Michigan condominium bylaw amendment become legally effective? A Michigan condominium bylaw amendment does not become legally effective upon co-owner vote — it becomes effective only when the executed amendment is recorded with the county Register of Deeds under MCL 559.191(a). For Southeast Michigan associations, this means recording with either the Oakland County Register of Deeds, Macomb County Register of Deeds, or the Wayne County Register of Deeds, as applicable. An amendment that has been voted upon but not recorded is not binding on co-owners and cannot be enforced by the association.

This recording requirement is not a formality: it is a legal prerequisite to enforceability. Boards that announce an amendment has “passed” and begin enforcing its provisions before recording are operating on legally infirm ground.

Step 7 — Deliver a Copy to Every Co-Owner

Once the amendment is recorded, MCL 559.191(b) requires that a copy of the recorded amendment be delivered to each co-owner in the condominium. Delivery by first-class mail to the address on file is standard practice, but the association may be able to e-mail a copy in certain circumstances. Retain proof of mailing. This distribution obligation is routinely overlooked by associations, particularly in larger communities, but it is a statutory requirement, not a courtesy.

Common Reasons Michigan Boards Pursue Bylaw Amendments

Significant revisions were made to the Michigan Condominium Act in 2001 and 2002, and associations whose governing documents have never been amended since that period could be operating under provisions that are out of compliance with current law. Additionally, condominium documents that predate 1988 may not comply with the Fair Housing Act as amended in that year, which extended federal non-discrimination protections to familial status. Other common amendment drivers include: adopting rental caps and short-term rental restrictions in response to the proliferation of Airbnb and VRBO activity; adding express attorney fee recovery provisions under MCL 559.206(b); reducing quorum thresholds to address chronic difficulty achieving a quorum at annual meetings; and expressly authorizing fines to be treated as assessments for lien purposes — an issue that, as the Michigan Court of Appeals has confirmed, cannot be assumed from silence in the governing documents.

Critical Pitfalls That Invalidate Michigan Condo Bylaw Amendments

What makes a Michigan condo bylaw amendment invalid? A Michigan condominium bylaw amendment is legally invalid if it was adopted by board vote alone without co-owner approval where a material amendment requires the 2/3 co-owner threshold under MCL 559.190(2); if it was voted upon outside a properly convened meeting without compliance with MCL 450.2407 or outside of the governing documents’ procedures for a vote without a meeting; if required mortgagee approval under MCL 559.190a was not obtained; or if the amendment was never recorded with the county Register of Deeds as required by MCL 559.191(a). Each of these defects may render the purported amendment unenforceable.

In Vidolich v Saline Northview Condominium Association, Mich. Ct. App. No. 334579 (Dec. 5, 2017), the Michigan Court of Appeals examined the limits of board authority to amend non-material provisions and confirmed that the materiality distinction under MCL 559.190 is applied. In Sawgrass Ridge Condominium Association v Alarie, Mich. Ct. App. No. 335144 (Jan. 9, 2018), the Court of Appeals dismissed a bylaw enforcement action entirely because the association had obtained co-owner ratification through a petition circulated outside a proper meeting — a procedure that failed to comply with the governing documents and MCL 450.2407. The enforcement action collapsed as a result. These cases are important reminders that procedural compliance is not merely about completing a checklist: it is the legal foundation upon which every subsequent enforcement action depends.

Best Practices for Southeast Michigan Boards and Property Managers

Conduct a governing document audit every five years, or immediately following any significant change in Michigan condominium law. Identify provisions that are legally outdated, internally inconsistent, or inadequate for your community’s current needs before an enforcement dispute exposes the gap. When you do amend, it may be best to do it comprehensively, because a piecemeal amendment that fixes one problem while leaving related provisions unreformed may create a new interpretive conflict. And engage Michigan condominium counsel at the outset, not after the vote is taken. The cost of proper legal guidance for a bylaw amendment project may be a fraction of the cost of defending an enforcement action that fails because the underlying amendment was procedurally defective.

Frequently Asked Questions About Condo Document Amendments

Your Governing Documents Are Only as Strong as the Process Behind Them.

A bylaw amendment that was voted on but never properly recorded is not an amendment, it is a potential liability. A provision your board has been enforcing for years may be legally unenforceable if the amendment that created it skipped a step. For condominium associations and property managers throughout Oakland County, Macomb County and Wayne County, the gap between what boards think their documents say and what Michigan courts will actually enforce is where disputes (and legal fees) are born.

Our Condominium & HOA Law Practice works with Southeast Michigan condominium associations and professional property managers to audit governing documents, draft and shepherd bylaw amendments through the full process, and ensure that every amendment your community adopts is legally sound from the co-owner vote through the Register of Deeds recording.

If your association is operating under documents that are outdated, internally inconsistent, or simply no longer adequate for your community’s needs — the time to act is before a dispute forces the issue.

About the Author

Richard M. Delonis is a Michigan condominium and HOA lawyer at Szura & Delonis, PLC in Southfield (Metro Detroit). He advises association boards and community association managers on governance, rule enforcement, assessment collections, document amendments, and risk management, with a practical focus on helping boards reduce disputes and run defensible, well-documented processes.

Disclaimer: This article provides general Michigan-oriented information for condominium association and HOA boards and is not legal advice. Associations should consult experienced legal counsel about their specific documents, facts, and options.