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 good news is that Michigan law provides substantial protection for condominium board members who govern responsibly. The centerpiece of that protection is the Business Judgment Rule, codified in the Michigan Nonprofit Corporation Act, MCL 450.2541, which governs every incorporated Michigan condominium association. Understanding how that rule works, what it requires from board members to activate its protection, and where its limits lie is essential knowledge for a Michigan board member.

For condominium associations across Michigan, the governing documents that run the community do not age gracefully on their own. Serving on a Michigan condominium association’s board of directors is a genuine act of community service. Board members in Troy, Bloomfield Hills, Novi, Southfield, Dearborn, and condominium communities throughout Oakland County, Macomb County, and Wayne County volunteer their time, navigate difficult personalities, manage complex financial decisions, and absorb the stress of governance for no compensation. What many of them may not fully understand, until a co-owner files a lawsuit, is that volunteer service does not automatically confer immunity from personal liability.

The good news is that Michigan law provides substantial protection for condominium board members who govern responsibly. The centerpiece of that protection is the Business Judgment Rule, codified in the Michigan Nonprofit Corporation Act, MCL 450.2541, which governs every incorporated Michigan condominium association. Understanding how that rule works, what it requires from board members to activate its protection, and where its limits lie is essential knowledge for a Michigan board member.

Why Michigan Condo Board Members Worry About Personal Liability — and Why That Worry Is Warranted

The liability anxiety that board members experience is not unfounded. Michigan condominium associations are frequently the targets of co-owner litigation — challenges to enforcement decisions, disputes over assessment levies, claims of selective enforcement, allegations of fiduciary breach, and challenges to the board’s authority to act. Because the association is a Michigan nonprofit corporation and its board members are its decision-makers, individual directors can find themselves named personally in lawsuits that arise from governance decisions they made in good faith under genuine time pressure.

The stakes extend beyond money. A lawsuit, even a meritless one, consumes board time, strains community relationships, and can deter future volunteers from serving. In Southeast Michigan’s densely developed condominium markets, where associations in communities like Bloomfield Township, Livonia, and Grosse Pointe regularly confront contentious enforcement and collection situations, this is not a theoretical risk.

The Legal Foundation: MCL 450.2541 and the Michigan Nonprofit Corporation Act

The Three-Part Standard of Care Every Director Must Meet

MCL 450.2541 provides the governing standard of care for Michigan condominium and HOA board members, requiring each director to act in good faith, with the care of an ordinarily prudent person in a like position, and in a manner reasonably believed to be in the best interests of the corporation. These three elements work together. A decision can be wrong, even costly, and still be protected if the director who made it acted in good faith, exercised reasonable care in reaching it, and genuinely believed it served the association’s interests. Michigan courts will refrain from substituting their judgment for a board’s reasonable judgment, and that judicial restraint is the practical meaning of the Business Judgment Rule in the condominium context.

The Business Judgment Rule as a Defense

The Business Judgment Rule is codified in MCL 450.2541(2), which provides that in discharging their duties, a director or officer is entitled to rely on information, opinions, reports, or statements prepared or presented by: one or more directors, officers, or employees of the corporation whom the director reasonably believes to be reliable and competent; legal counsel, public accountants, engineers, or other persons as to matters the director reasonably believes are within their professional or expert competence; or a committee of the board of which the director is not a member, if the director reasonably believes the committee merits confidence.

The practical consequence of this provision is significant: a board that engages counsel, reviews a professional’s report, and then acts on that professional guidance has a powerful statutory defense against a claim that it breached its duty of care. The rule does not guarantee the decision was correct. It protects the process by which the decision was made.

The Reliance Doctrine: Why Consulting Counsel Matters More Than You Think

A board of directors that relies on the opinion of counsel will likely have the protections of the Business Judgment Rule and be deemed to have acted in good faith and in the best interests of the association. In contrast, a board that arbitrarily makes decisions without the opinion of legal counsel subjects itself to potential liability. This is not merely theoretical. In enforcement disputes, assessment challenges, and governance controversies litigated in the Oakland County Circuit Court and Wayne County Circuit Court, the presence or absence of documented legal consultation can be outcome-determinative on the liability question.

Under MCL 450.2541(3), a director is not entitled to rely on information if they have knowledge concerning the matter that makes such reliance unwarranted. This qualification is critical: the reliance protection is not a blank check. A board member who consults counsel but then proceeds in a manner directly contrary to that advice, or who relies on obviously inadequate information, cannot invoke the protection of the rule.

MCL 450.2209: The Articles of Incorporation Liability Shield

Eliminating Personal Liability Through the Articles of Incorporation

The Business Judgment Rule is a defense — it must be raised in litigation and proven through the facts. MCL 450.2209 offers something more structural: a provision in the association’s Articles of Incorporation that can eliminate personal monetary liability for board members before any lawsuit is ever filed.

MCL 450.2209 permits the articles of incorporation to contain a provision that eliminates a director’s liability for monetary damages unless the director received a financial benefit they were not entitled to, intentionally inflicted harm on the corporation or its members, declared an improper distribution, committed an intentional criminal act, or was liable for attorney’s fees as a result of a bad-faith derivative action. The 2015 amendments to the Michigan Nonprofit Corporation Act expanded the permissible exculpation language that may be included in a nonprofit corporation’s articles of incorporation, including by removing the former gross-negligence carveout from the director-liability provision in MCL 450.2209(1)(c). 

The Five Exceptions That Cannot Be Eliminated

Even the strongest articles of incorporation provision cannot eliminate liability for: receiving an unauthorized financial benefit; intentionally inflicting harm on the corporation or its members; declaring an improper distribution; committing an intentional criminal act; or being found liable for attorney fees in a bad-faith derivative action. These five exceptions represent the floor of accountability that Michigan law preserves regardless of what the governing documents say. Notably, they require intentional or clearly wrongful conduct. Ordinary governance mistakes, even poor ones, are not in this category.

Association Assumption of Liability: MCL 450.2209(1)(e)

MCL 450.2209(1)(e) provides that a condominium association may assume liability for all acts or omissions of a volunteer director, volunteer officer, or other volunteer, provided the volunteer was acting within the scope of their authority, their conduct did not amount to gross negligence or willful and wanton misconduct, and their conduct was not an intentional tort. This provision allows the association, rather than the individual board member, to bear the financial consequences of covered governance decisions. It is one of the most powerful liability tools available to Michigan condominium associations, and it requires an express provision in the Articles of Incorporation to be effective.

Why Volunteer Status Is Critical to These Protections

The protections available under MCL 450.2209(1)(c) and (e) extend only to volunteer directors and officers — those who do not receive anything of more than nominal value for serving. Michigan associations considering any form of board member compensation must understand that even modest compensation may cost a director their eligibility for these statutory protections. This is a governance decision that warrants consultation with Michigan condominium counsel before implementation.

What the Business Judgment Rule Protects — and What It Does Not

Decisions the Rule Shields

The Business Judgment Rule provides meaningful protection for a wide range of ordinary governance decisions: selecting contractors and vendors; approving budgets and assessments; setting enforcement priorities; interpreting ambiguous bylaw provisions; and managing common element repairs. In each of these areas, courts applying Michigan law have been reluctant to second-guess board decisions made through a defensible process.

Where the Rule Breaks Down: Ultra Vires Acts and Bad Faith

Michigan courts have held that acts of directors that are ultra vires (beyond the power of the corporation) may subject a director to liability, as they may not be in good faith, reasonably prudent, and in the best interests of the corporation. Courts can apply this principle to condominium and HOA directors and potentially hold them liable for failing to comply with the plain language of their governing documents, as such actions are beyond the power of the nonprofit corporation. This is a critical limitation: a board that acts outside the authority granted by the Master Deed, Bylaws, or Michigan Condominium Act cannot invoke the Business Judgment Rule to cover that action. The rule presupposes that the board is exercising legitimate authority.

The Rule Does Not Protect Boards That Ignore Their Own Documents

This is the most practically important limitation for Southeast Michigan boards to internalize. A board that imposes a fine without a hearing, records a lien on fines that its Bylaws do not authorize treating as assessments or amends its governing documents through a board vote alone rather than a co-owner vote under MCL 559.190(2) is not exercising business judgment. It is exceeding its authority. The Business Judgment Rule does not apply to ultra vires acts, regardless of the board’s good intentions.

Practical Governance: How Michigan Boards Earn Business Judgment Rule Protection on Every Decision

Document Your Deliberations

The Business Judgment Rule protects process, and process must be demonstrable. Board meeting minutes should reflect that contested or significant decisions were discussed, that relevant information was reviewed, and that the board considered the association’s interests. Sparse minutes, or no minutes at all, are a litigation disadvantage that the Business Judgment Rule will be hard pressed to overcome.

Consult the Right Experts

Act Within the Scope of Your Authority

Before the board takes any significant action, the threshold question is always: does our authority to take this action exist in the governing documents or Michigan law? If the answer is not clearly yes, seek legal guidance before acting. An ultra vires action is not protected by the Business Judgment Rule and may expose individual board members to personal liability regardless of what the Articles of Incorporation say.

Avoid Conflicts of Interest

A board member with a personal financial interest in a board decision should be recused from that vote, and the recusal should be documented in the minutes. Interested-party transactions are scrutinized in litigation, and the failure to recuse — particularly in a smaller association where board membership is limited — is a fact pattern that undermines the good-faith element of the Business Judgment Rule analysis.

Enforce Consistently

Selective enforcement is a common basis for co-owner claims against Michigan condominium boards. A board that enforces a rule against one co-owner but ignores the same violation by another opens itself to claims of discriminatory enforcement, breach of fiduciary duty, and potential Fair Housing Act issues. Documented, consistent enforcement is both a governance best practice and a liability protection strategy.

Directors & Officers Insurance: The Layer of Protection the Statute Does Not Provide

The statutory protections under the Michigan Nonprofit Corporation Act address the outcome of a lawsuit — whether a board member is personally liable for a judgment. D&O insurance addresses the process — who pays for the lawyers while the lawsuit is pending. Both are necessary. A board member who wins a lawsuit after two years of litigation has still experienced two years of litigation. Adequate D&O coverage, reviewed annually with the association’s insurance professional, is the practical complement to the legal protections the statute provides.

Best Practices for Southeast Michigan Boards 

Review your association’s Articles of Incorporation against the current MCL 450.2209 framework, particularly if the Articles predate the 2015 amendments to the Michigan Nonprofit Corporation Act. If your Articles do not contain current liability limitation and association assumption of liability provisions, a straightforward amendment can provide substantially expanded protection for every board member who serves your association going forward. Ensure your D&O coverage is adequate and current. Document every significant board decision with minutes that reflect the deliberative process. Consult Michigan condominium counsel before significant enforcement actions, assessment levies, or governance decisions where the board’s authority is anything less than clear. And enforce your governing documents consistently; the Business Judgment Rule’s good-faith requirement and the practical risk of selective enforcement claims both point toward the same governance discipline.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can a Michigan condo board member be personally sued for a governance decision?

Yes. Co-owners can and do name individual board members personally in lawsuits challenging governance decisions. The Business Judgment Rule under MCL 450.2541 and liability limitation provisions under MCL 450.2209 provide important defenses, but those defenses must be properly activated through good-faith process, documented deliberation, and Articles of Incorporation that contain the applicable liability protection provisions. Board members who act in good faith, within their authority, and with appropriate professional guidance are well-protected. Those who act arbitrarily, in bad faith, or beyond the scope of their authority are not.

What is the difference between the Business Judgment Rule and Directors and Officers insurance?

The Business Judgment Rule under MCL 450.2541 is a legal defense that, if successfully raised, protects board members from being held liable for governance decisions made in good faith and with reasonable care. D&O insurance is a financial product that pays the cost of defending a lawsuit, such as attorney fees, settlement amounts, and judgments,  regardless of whether the Business Judgment Rule ultimately applies. Every Michigan condo board needs both: the rule protects the outcome; the insurance protects the board’s finances during the process.

Does the Business Judgment Rule protect a board that made a bad financial decision?

Generally, yes — if the process was sound. A costly contractor selection, a miscalculated budget, or an ineffective repair strategy does not by itself create personal liability for board members who made the decision in good faith, gathered reasonable information, and genuinely believed the decision served the association’s interests. Michigan courts do not require boards to be right. They require boards to be reasonable. The rule breaks down when decisions are made in bad faith, without adequate information, outside the board’s authority, or in the face of clear conflicts of interest.

Do Michigan condo board members need to update their Articles of Incorporation to get liability protection?

Likely yes, if the Articles predate the 2015 amendments to the Michigan Nonprofit Corporation Act. Those amendments to MCL 450.2209 significantly expanded the scope of available liability protection. Associations whose Articles of Incorporation were filed before January 2015 may not reflect these expanded protections. A review by Michigan condominium counsel is the appropriate starting point.

What actions by a condo board member are NOT protected by the Business Judgment Rule?

The Business Judgment Rule does not protect conduct that is ultra vires, meaning that it is beyond the board’s legal authority under the governing documents or Michigan law. It also does not protect decisions made in bad faith, with clear conflicts of interest, or in deliberate disregard of professional advice. Separately, the liability limitation provisions of MCL 450.2209 expressly cannot eliminate liability for: receiving an unauthorized financial benefit; intentionally inflicting harm on the corporation or its members; declaring an improper distribution; committing an intentional criminal act; or being found liable for attorney fees in a bad-faith derivative action.

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.

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.

Michigan community association attorneys and board members are discovering, often the hard way, that artificial intelligence tools like ChatGPT, Google Gemini, and Microsoft Copilot are rapidly infiltrating day-to-day association governance. From drafting violation notices to summarizing board meeting minutes, AI is already being used in community associations across Wayne County, Oakland County, Macomb County, and every corner of the state. The question is no longer whether your association will use AI. The question is whether it will use AI well — or whether the first time your board confronts the legal consequences will be in the middle of a lawsuit.

This article addresses what every Michigan condominium board member, HOA board member, and community association manager needs to understand about AI: what the law actually requires of you, where the specific risks lie, and, importantly, why your association needs a written AI policy before the next violation letter goes out the door.

The AI Revolution Is Already Inside Your Association

What is AI, and why should my Michigan HOA or condo board care? AI tools like ChatGPT and Google Gemini are large language models that generate text by predicting the next most likely word — they do not “know” facts or verify accuracy. Michigan community association boards must care because these tools are already being used for governance tasks, and the legal consequences of unguided AI use, including fiduciary duty breaches, privilege waiver, and selective enforcement claims, can expose boards to significant liability.

It would be convenient to treat AI as a future problem. It is not. According to a May 2025 industry survey, about 71% of respondents across the community-association industry reported currently using AI for association-related tasks. Among the tools in use: ChatGPT, Google Gemini, Microsoft Copilot embedded in Microsoft 365, and purpose-built platforms like STAN AI and Vantaca’s HOAi — a platform that claims to generate annual budgets in under two minutes.

The technology is not inherently dangerous. A Stanford University study found that general-purpose AI hallucinates, meaning it generates confident, plausible-sounding, factually incorrect information, on 58 to 82 percent of legal queries. Purpose-built legal AI tools still produce errors more than 17 percent of the time. A January 2025 MIT Press–published study found that LLMs often overstate their confidence and may report very high confidence even when their answers are incorrect. These are tools your board members are already using, often without any policy framework, without any training, and without any understanding of the legal consequences.

The Fiduciary Duty Problem Under MCL 450.2541

Does using AI violate a Michigan board member’s fiduciary duty? Using AI without verification and human oversight can arguably violate a board member’s fiduciary duty of care under MCL 450.2541. A director who blindly relies on AI output to make governance decisions , particularly enforcement actions or policy interpretations, may fail the “ordinarily prudent person” standard. AI does not qualify as a professional expert under MCL 450.2541(2)(b), so reliance on AI does not trigger the statutory protection that reliance on an attorney or CPA provides.

Michigan’s Nonprofit Corporation Act sets the legal standard for every board member of a condominium or HOA. Under MCL 450.2541(1), a director must discharge duties in good faith, with the care an ordinarily prudent person in a like position would exercise, and in a manner reasonably believed to be in the best interests of the corporation. This is the duty of care: and AI use implicates it directly.

MCL 450.2541(2)(b) permits directors to rely on the opinion of legal counsel, public accountants, engineers, or other persons the director reasonably believes to be within that person’s professional competence. ChatGPT is not a person. It is not licensed. It carries no malpractice insurance and cannot be cross-examined. Reliance on AI output does not qualify for the statutory protection that reliance on professional counsel provides.

The statute goes further. Under MCL 450.2541(3), a director is not entitled to rely on information if they have knowledge concerning the matter that makes such reliance unwarranted. Once a board member understands, as every board member reading this article now does, that AI generates incorrect legal and factual information at high rates, blind reliance on AI output is legally unwarranted. The business judgment rule, which insulates board decisions from judicial second-guessing when the board follows a reasonable process, protects process, but not outcomes. A board that substitutes ChatGPT for counsel and deliberation has a process problem.

The Business Judgment Rule Won’t Save You

Michigan courts have applied the business judgment rule to limit judicial review of association decisions to whether the board acted in good faith in furtherance of the association’s legitimate interests. The rule’s protection depends on process: did the board consult appropriate experts, review relevant information, and deliberate? A violation notice generated by an unverified AI prompt (citing a bylaw provision that does not exist) does not reflect a reasonable process. It reflects a process failure. That distinction matters enormously when a homeowner’s attorney is deposing your board president.

Attorney-Client Privilege: The Risk No One Sees Coming

Of all the AI risks facing Michigan community associations, the attorney-client privilege issue is the one that generates the most surprise, and the most damage. The scenario is familiar: a board president receives a detailed legal memorandum from the association’s attorney regarding a construction defect claim or a pending assessment dispute. The board president wants to share key points with the other directors before an executive session. So they paste the memo into ChatGPT and ask for a five-bullet summary.

The consequences may be severe and irreversible.

United States v. Heppner: The February 2026 Wake-Up Call

Can inputting attorney communications into AI waive attorney-client privilege? Yes. Under the reasoning of United States v. Heppner (S.D.N.Y. 2026), inputting privileged attorney-client communications into a consumer-tier AI tool may waive privilege over both the AI output and the underlying communication. Consumer AI platforms lack the confidentiality protections required to maintain privilege. Michigan community association boards should never input attorney communications into any AI tool without explicit guidance from association counsel and use of an enterprise-tier platform.

In United States v. Heppner, a federal court in New York held that a defendant’s communications with Anthropic’s Claude were protected by neither the attorney-client privilege nor the work-product doctrine where he used the public AI platform on his own initiative, and the court further stated that even if privileged information had been entered into Claude, privilege was waived by sharing it with Claude and Anthropic.

The holding’s practical implication for associations is stark. A board member who inputs privileged attorney communications into a consumer-tier AI tool (such as ChatGPT Free, Plus, or Pro; Gemini consumer; Copilot personal) may waive privilege not only over the AI-generated summary, but potentially over the underlying attorney communication itself.

At the same time, the law is not yet absolute in every setting. In Warner v. Gilbarco, Inc., the Eastern District of Michigan held that a litigant’s ChatGPT-assisted materials were protected work product, emphasized that ChatGPT and similar programs are “tools, not persons,” and held that work-product waiver requires disclosure to an adversary or in a manner likely to reach an adversary.

Discovery cases also show that AI prompts and outputs may become discoverable when a party affirmatively relies on them in litigation. In Tremblay v. OpenAI, Inc., the court required disclosure of the prompts, outputs, and account settings used for the positive testing results referred to in the complaint. In Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, the court found at least a limited waiver where the plaintiffs had relied on certain prompt-output pairs in their pleadings and filings, while rejecting an overbroad attempt to force production of every unrelied-upon prompt and output

The practical lesson for community associations is straightforward: do not assume that prompts entered into a public AI platform are privileged, and do not assume they are immune from discovery. If the communication originated with association counsel, it should not be pasted into ChatGPT, Claude, or any other public generative-AI tool without first obtaining the attorney’s advice and using an approved, secure workflow.

For boards, managers, and directors, the safest rule is simple: never feed privileged legal advice into a public AI tool and assume the privilege will survive.

Selective Enforcement: How AI Can Make a Bad Problem Worse

What is selective enforcement, and how does AI create selective enforcement risk? Selective enforcement occurs when a community association enforces rules against some owners but not others with identical violations — an often raised defense. AI can potentially create a selective enforcement risk by generating inconsistently worded notices across sessions, by processing only some owners’ complaints depending on who inputs information, and by producing enforcement patterns that may correlate with protected class characteristics under the Fair Housing Act without any intentional bias.

Selective enforcement — enforcing rules against some owners while ignoring identical violations by others — is a frequently raised defense in Michigan community association enforcement actions. Michigan courts have decided that even minor bylaw violations can be enforced, but that principle cuts both ways: if the association enforces against Owner A while ignoring the same violation by Owner B, the disparity becomes possible evidence of willful unfairness.

AI may amplify selective enforcement risk in ways boards often do not anticipate. If AI tools are used to process complaints about certain owners but not others, enforcement becomes biased by input selection. If AI generates differently-worded notices for identical violations in different sessions, the paper trail may appear to show disparate treatment. If AI-driven enforcement patterns correlate, even unintentionally, with protected class characteristics under the Fair Housing Act, the association could potentially face federal liability exposure. The fix requires standardized AI prompts for enforcement tasks and mandatory human review of every notice against the association’s enforcement log.

Why Your Association Needs a Written AI Policy

What should a Michigan community association AI policy include? A comprehensive Michigan community association AI policy should address five core areas: (1) board authorization by resolution specifying approved and prohibited uses; (2) data classification tiers identifying what information may and may not be input into AI tools; (3) mandatory human review and sign-off before any AI-generated content is distributed; (4) record retention protocols for AI prompts and outputs used in official documents; and (5) an annual review requirement as technology and law continue to evolve rapidly.

Governance without a framework is governance waiting for a crisis. It is highly likely that most Michigan community associations have not adopted any resolution or policy governing AI use. That gap creates several compounding problems: board members and managers are using AI tools without board authorization, potentially acting ultra vires; there is no standard for what data may be input; there is no human review requirement before AI-generated communications go out; and there is no audit trail to demonstrate the oversight that supports a business judgment defense.

Phase 1 — Board Authorization

The foundation of a responsible AI governance framework is a board resolution. The resolution should identify which AI tools or tiers are acceptable for association use, specify approved use cases (communication drafting, minutes summarization, FAQ development, vendor RFP templates), and explicitly prohibit others (legal interpretation, unsupervised enforcement escalation, processing of owner-identifiable data in consumer tools). Documenting this discussion in board meeting minutes creates the governance record that matters if decisions are later challenged.

Phase 2 — Data Classification and Tool Selection

Not all information is created equal. A sound AI policy classifies information into tiers. General announcements and non-sensitive administrative content may be used with consumer-tier AI tools. Owner names, addresses, and contact information should be used only with enterprise-tier tools. Assessment balances, delinquency records, accommodation requests, and personnel matters require enterprise protections and legal guidance. Attorney-client communications are categorically prohibited from input into any AI tool without explicit counsel direction.

The enterprise tier distinction is critical. Consumer tiers — ChatGPT Free, Plus, and Pro; Google Gemini consumer; Microsoft Copilot personal — use input data for model training by default (unless the user specifically opts out) and provide no contractual confidentiality protections. Enterprise tiers, such as ChatGPT Business or Enterprise, Google Workspace with Gemini, Microsoft 365 Copilot, do not use data for training, offer audit logging, SOC 2 compliance, and provide contractual protections that consumer tiers do not.

Phase 3 — Human Review Requirements

Every AI-generated document that touches association governance must be reviewed by a qualified human before distribution. For violation notices, this means verifying every bylaw citation against the actual governing documents, because the hallucination rate for AI legal citations is far too high to skip this step. For meeting minutes, the board secretary must attest to the accuracy of every motion, vote, and action item. For enforcement communications, the manager or board must confirm that the same violation is being treated the same way association-wide.

Phase 4 — Record Retention and Disclosure

Courts may now begin to treat AI prompts and outputs like emails, Slack messages, and server logs for discovery purposes. In the NYT v. OpenAI litigation (2025), the court ordered OpenAI to preserve certain consumer ChatGPT output logs that otherwise would have been deleted, and later ordered OpenAI to produce a de-identified 20 million-log sample of retained consumer ChatGPT logs; that production order was upheld in early 2026. Association records may include AI-generated content and the prompts that produced it. Associations may be well advised to maintain a clear record retention policy that distinguishes between AI working drafts and final approved documents, and that specifies how long AI-related records are retained.

Phase 5 — Annual Review

AI law is moving faster than almost any other area of technology regulation. The Heppner decision came down in February 2026 and purpose-built HOA AI platforms have launched within the last 18 months. A responsible AI policy requires annual review, or more frequent review when significant legal or technological changes occur. The board should consult association counsel at each review to confirm the policy remains legally sound.

Practical AI Uses That Are Safe (When Done Right)

Responsible AI adoption begins with understanding where the tool adds value without creating unacceptable risk. When used with appropriate human oversight, AI is well-suited to a range of community association tasks:

• Drafting first versions of seasonal owner communications, maintenance reminders, and common area notices
• Summarizing board meeting transcripts into structured minutes (subject to board secretary review and attestation)
• Creating FAQ documents from the association’s governing documents (subject to legal review before publication)
• Generating vendor RFP templates and bid comparison frameworks
• Drafting budget narrative explanations for owner distributions
• Standardizing the tone and format of violation notice templates (subject to bylaw citation verification)

Uses That Are Never Appropriate

Consult Qualified Michigan Counsel

AI governance in community associations sits at the intersection of Michigan corporate law (the Nonprofit Corporation Act), condominium law (the Michigan Condominium Act), privacy law (the Michigan Identity Theft Protection Act), federal fair housing law, federal debt collection law, attorney-client privilege doctrine, and rapidly evolving case law interpreting AI specifically. No technology checklist or generic AI policy template can account for your association’s specific governing documents, operational circumstances, and risk profile.

Michigan community association boards should consult with qualified legal counsel before adopting any AI use policy. Our firm has been actively drafting and implementing artificial intelligence policies for condominium associations and homeowners associations throughout Michigan. If you would like guidance on creating an AI policy tailored to your association’s governing documents and operational needs, or if you have questions about any of the legal issues discussed in this article, we welcome your inquiry. Contact us today to schedule a consultation.

Frequently Asked Questions

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.

Enforcing community rules is one of the hardest parts of serving on a condominium or homeowners association board. Violations repeat. Residents push back. And somewhere in the background, there is always the question: are we doing this the right way?

That question matters more than most boards realize. An association that skips steps, applies rules inconsistently, or imposes fines without proper authority can end up on the losing end of a lawsuit, even when the underlying violation was real. Understanding the legal framework for rule enforcement in Michigan is not just good governance. It is how your board protects the community and itself.

Why Due Process Is Not Optional for Michigan Condo Boards

What is “due process” in the Michigan condo context? Due process in Michigan condominium enforcement means that before a board imposes a fine or penalty on a co-owner, it must provide adequate written notice of the alleged violation and a meaningful opportunity to be heard. This requirement is grounded in both the Michigan Condominium Act (MCL 559.101 et seq.) and the association’s own governing documents, and courts treat it as a non-waivable prerequisite to a valid fine.

The Constitutional and Statutory Foundations

The concept of procedural due process — notice and an opportunity to be heard — has its origins in constitutional law, but it extends into private associations through statute and contract. When a co-owner purchases a condominium unit in Michigan, they enter into a binding contractual relationship with the association, governed by the Master Deed, Bylaws, and Rules and Regulations. Those documents, in turn, operate within the framework established by the Michigan Condominium Act, MCL 559.101 et seq.

What “Due Process” Actually Means in the Condo Context

The Michigan Condominium Act does not merely permit boards to enforce rules and levy fines. It constrains how they must do so. An association that bypasses the statutory and contractual process does not merely risk losing in court. It risks a finding that its fines were void ab initio — as if they were never imposed at all.

Before a board can enforce any rule or levy any fine, it needs to know where its authority comes from.

For condominium associations, the Michigan Condominium Act authorizes associations to enforce their condominium documents and levy reasonable fines against co-owners who violate them. Homeowners associations operate under their declaration and bylaws, along with the Michigan Nonprofit Corporation Act, MCL 450.2101 et seq. In either case, the authority to impose fines must be expressly granted somewhere in the governing documents. If the power to fine is not in the declaration, bylaws, or rules and regulations, the association may not have the legal right to impose monetary penalties at all.

This is why it is important for boards to review their governing documents carefully before starting or overhauling an enforcement program. Knowing exactly what your documents authorize is the foundation of every enforcement action you take.

Even when a violation is clear, boards cannot simply send a fine and consider the matter closed. Michigan courts have recognized due process protections in the condo enforcement context, and most governing documents require a specific procedure before fines can be imposed.

A sound enforcement process generally follows these steps. First, the association sends the owner written notice describing the specific violation. Second, the owner receives a reasonable opportunity to cure the violation before fines begin to accrue. Third, if the owner requests a hearing, the board must provide one before imposing any monetary penalty. Fourth, fines may only be levied after those steps are completed.

Skipping the hearing requirement, failing to provide adequate written notice, or fining an owner before giving them a chance to correct the problem are common mistakes that can get a fine thrown out if the owner challenges it. Carefully following the procedure every time is not just courtesy. It is what makes the fine enforceable.

One practical tip: use a consistent written notice template for all violations. Standardized notices ensure that every owner receives the same information and that no required elements are accidentally omitted.

Step-by-Step: The Legally Compliant Fine and Hearing Process

Step 1 — Document the Violation Properly

Before any notice issues, the violation must be documented. This means dated, written records (ideally with photographs) identifying the specific rule or bylaw provision allegedly violated, the unit number and co-owner involved, and the identity of the person who observed the violation. Vague complaints or undocumented verbal reports are an inadequate foundation for enforcement and will be exploited in any subsequent dispute.

Step 2 — Issue a Written Notice of Violation

The co-owner must receive written notice of the alleged violation. Best practice (and many Bylaws expressly require) delivery by first-class mail to the address on file, with a copy retained by the association. The notice should identify the specific rule violated, the date and nature of the violation, and any opportunity to cure before formal proceedings are initiated.

Step 3 — Provide the Opportunity to Cure

Must a Michigan condo board give a co-owner a chance to fix a violation before imposing a fine? In most Michigan condominium communities, the governing documents require an opportunity to cure — a defined period during which the co-owner can correct the violation and avoid formal fines — before a hearing is convened. While MCL 559.206 does not always mandate a cure period by its own terms, failing to provide one when the Bylaws require it renders any subsequent fine procedurally defective and legally vulnerable.

Not every violation is curable (a completed unauthorized alteration may be beyond cure), but where cure is possible and your documents require it, the cure period is mandatory, not discretionary.

Step 4 — Issue the Notice of Hearing

If the violation is not cured, or cure is not applicable, the board must issue a formal Notice of Hearing. This notice must be provided within the timeframe your Bylaws specify — commonly 10 to 15 days in advance — and must include the date, time, and location of the hearing; the specific rule or provision at issue; the proposed fine or penalty; and a clear statement of the co-owner’s right to appear, present evidence, and be heard.

Step 5 — Conduct the Hearing

The hearing must be a genuine proceeding, not a rubber stamp. The co-owner must be given a meaningful opportunity to speak, present evidence, and respond to the association’s evidence. Many Bylaws allow the hearing to be conducted by the full board or a designated committee. Importantly, any board member with a personal conflict of interest in the matter should be recused from participating in the hearing decision.

Step 6 — Issue the Written Decision

Does a Michigan condo board have to issue a written decision after a fine hearing? Yes. Following a due process hearing, the board is required, both by sound governance practice and, in most cases, by the association’s governing documents, to issue a written decision stating the outcome and the fine imposed, if any. An oral announcement at the hearing is insufficient. The written decision creates the enforceable record and triggers the co-owner’s obligation to pay, and it is essential if the association later pursues lien or collection remedies under MCL 559.208.

Step 7 — Record the Fine and Pursue Collection if Necessary

Unpaid fines may be treatable as an assessment under Michigan law — but only if your governing documents expressly authorize it. This critical distinction is not a technicality; it is a threshold question that determines whether a condominium lien can lawfully be recorded and foreclosed at all. In Channel View E Condo Ass’n v. Ferguson, Mich. Ct. App. No. 351888 (Feb. 25, 2021), the Michigan Court of Appeals held that where the association’s Bylaws did not expressly provide that fines could be treated as assessments, the association lacked authority under its governing documents — and therefore under MCL 559.208 — to record a lien consisting solely of unpaid fines and pursue foreclosure. The court’s holding was unambiguous: fines are not automatically assessments, and the authority to treat them as such must be grounded in the express language of the Bylaws. Boards and property managers in Oakland County, Macomb County, and Wayne County should review their governing documents before recording any lien premised on unpaid fines. If your Bylaws are silent or ambiguous on this point, the lien is legally vulnerable and the foreclosure action may fail entirely. This is precisely the kind of document review that Michigan condominium counsel should conduct before enforcement escalates to the lien stage.

Common Due Process Mistakes

Skipping the Hearing Entirely

The most dangerous mistake Michigan boards make is treating the hearing as optional, particularly for “small” fines or repeat violations. There is no de minimis exception in MCL 559.206. Every fine requires the process, every time.

Defective or Untimely Notice

A notice that fails to identify the specific rule violated, provide adequate advance time, or reach the co-owner at their address of record is a defective notice. Courts in Oakland County and Wayne County have not hesitated to find that procedurally defective fines cannot be enforced.

Conflicts of Interest on the Hearing Panel

When the board member who initiated the complaint also sits in judgment of the hearing, the process is structurally compromised. This is particularly acute in smaller associations where board membership is limited. Consider designating an independent hearing committee in your Bylaws for exactly this reason.

Imposing Fines Not Authorized by Your Documents

A board has no inherent authority to impose a fine that is not authorized by, and in an amount not permitted by, the governing documents. Boards operating under older Bylaws that lack a fine schedule should work with Michigan condominium counsel to adopt a properly noticed and approved fine schedule before attempting enforcement.

Failure to Provide a Written Decision

Verbal decisions issued at the hearing, without a follow-up written determination, are inadequate. The written decision is the legal predicate for collection. Without it, the fine exists in procedural limbo.

Fines vs. Suspension of Privileges: Understanding the Distinction

Can a Michigan condo board suspend a co-owner’s privileges — like pool or clubhouse access — without a hearing? Generally, no. The suspension of co-owner privileges is a penalty functionally equivalent to a fine, and most Michigan courts and governing documents treat it as requiring the same notice-and-hearing process. Boards that summarily suspend privileges without due process face the same legal exposure as those that impose fines without a hearing, including potential claims for breach of the governing documents.

Boards should also be careful not to conflate fines with the suspension of common element access as a collection tool. While some association documents authorize suspension of certain amenities for non-payment of assessments, that authority is document-specific and does not eliminate the due process obligation for underlying violations.

How Oakland County and Wayne County Courts Have Treated Condo Due Process Disputes

Michigan courts will require strict adherence to association governing documents in enforcement proceedings. The Michigan Court of Appeals has reinforced that condominium co-owners are entitled to enforce the procedural protections in their governing documents, and that boards which deviate from those procedures, even in good faith, do so at legal peril.

Cases litigated in the Oakland County Circuit Court (Sixth Judicial Circuit) and the Wayne County Circuit Court (Third Judicial Circuit) reflect a judiciary that is well-acquainted with condominium enforcement disputes and unsympathetic to procedural shortcuts. Southeast Michigan’s dense concentration of condominium communities, with major developments throughout Bloomfield Township, Troy, Novi, Southfield, Dearborn, and the Grosse Pointe communities, means these courts develop considerable familiarity with association governance issues.

Boards and property managers operating in these markets should treat procedural compliance not as a formality, but as the foundation of every enforcement action.

Best Practices for Southeast Michigan Boards and Property Managers

Document everything, always. Maintain a violation log with dates, photographs, and correspondence. Issue all notices in writing and retain proof of delivery. Recuse conflicted board members consistently and document recusals in meeting minutes. Review your fine schedule annually to ensure it is properly authorized and current. And engage Michigan condominium counsel before your enforcement situation becomes a lawsuit.

Consistency Is Not Optional

Selective enforcement is one of the most powerful defenses an owner can raise in Michigan courts. If the board has ignored similar violations by other residents, or has applied the rules strictly to some owners while overlooking the same behavior by others, a court may find the enforcement action to be arbitrary or discriminatory.

Consistency does not mean perfection. Boards are not expected to catch every violation the moment it occurs. But it does mean applying the same standards, the same process, and the same consequences to every owner, regardless of who they are or how they feel about the board.

Good documentation is essential. Keep records of violation notices sent, hearings held, fines imposed, and any follow-up actions taken. If an owner ever challenges an enforcement decision, those records are what allow the board to show that the process was fair and even-handed. Without documentation, it becomes difficult to defend against a selective enforcement claim, even when the board acted in good faith.

A violation log, maintained in writing and reviewed at board meetings, is a simple and effective tool for tracking enforcement activity across the community.

Frequently Asked Questions About Condo Rules and Fines

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

Don’t Let a Procedural Misstep Undo Your Enforcement Action.

Our Condominium & HOA Law Practice is built around the needs of Michigan condominium associations, HOA boards, and professional property managers. From Oakland County to Wayne County, Macomb County, and across Metro Detroit, we help community associations govern with confidence — and enforce with legal precision.

If this article raised questions about your association’s procedures, your governing documents, or your enforcement authority, we would welcome the opportunity to discuss them.

Whether you need a governing document review, a fine and hearing procedure audit, or experienced counsel when enforcement turns adversarial — we are ready to help.

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.

For Michigan HOA boards, the Homeowner Energy Policy Act (HEPA) represents one of the most significant regulatory changes in years. The law invalidates blanket bans on solar panels, requires associations to adopt detailed written policies, and creates new application and approval procedures that boards must follow precisely.

This comprehensive guide explains what the law requires, what your board can and cannot do, and the specific steps you should take now to ensure compliance and protect your community.

What Is the Homeowner Energy Policy Act?

The Homeowner Energy Policy Act (Public Act 68 of 2024) was signed by Governor Whitmer on July 8, 2024, and became effective April 1, 2025. The Act limits homeowner associations’ authority to prohibit or restrict members from installing energy-saving improvements on their properties.

The law applies to two categories of installations: (1) solar energy systems, which are subject to detailed regulations, and (2) other energy-saving improvements, which associations generally cannot prohibit at all.

Energy-Saving Improvements That Cannot Be Prohibited

Under MCL 559.305, any HOA provision that prohibits—or requires association approval for—the following improvements is invalid and unenforceable:

• Clotheslines
• Air source and ground source heat pumps
• Insulation upgrades
• Rain barrels
• Reflective roofing
• Energy-efficient appliances
• Solar water heaters
• Electric vehicle charging equipment
• Energy-efficient windows

This means your existing deed restrictions, bylaws, or architectural guidelines that prohibit these items are now void as a matter of Michigan public policy—regardless of what your governing documents say.

Solar Energy Systems: What HOAs Can Still Regulate

While HEPA prohibits outright bans on solar panels, the law does preserve certain regulatory authority for associations. HOA boards can still review solar panel applications and enforce reasonable aesthetic standards—but those standards must meet specific statutory requirements.

Grounds for Denying a Solar Panel Application

Under MCL 559.309, an HOA may deny a solar energy system application only if one or more of the following conditions apply:

Court Finding of Legal Violation: A court has found that the installation violates a law.

Non-Conformance with Approved Application: The installed system does not substantially conform with the application that was approved.

Roof Installation Standards: For roof-mounted systems, the association may deny if: the system extends more than 6 inches above or beyond the roof; the system does not conform to the roof slope with a top edge parallel to the roof line; or the frame, brackets, or visible conduit/wiring are not silver, bronze, or black tone (colors commonly available in the marketplace).

Ground Installation Standards: For ground-mounted systems in a fenced yard or patio, the association may deny if the system is taller than the fence line.

Critical Limitations on HOA Authority

The Act imposes strict limits on what standards an HOA can enforce. Any policy standards that reduce estimated annual energy production by more than 10% or increase installation costs by more than $1,000 are prohibited. Additionally, HOAs cannot:

• Prohibit solar panels from being installed on any roof face
• Require a specific technology (such as solar shingles instead of traditional panels)
• Inquire into a member’s energy usage
• Impose conditions that impair system operation or void industry standard warranties
• Require post-installation reporting
• Charge higher application fees than for other property modification requests
• Deny applications based on who owns the system or the financing method chosen

The Mandatory Solar Energy Policy: Requirements and Deadline

Under MCL 559.309(1), every Michigan homeowner association must adopt a written solar energy policy statement within one year of the Act’s effective date. The deadline is April 1, 2026.

Required Policy Provisions

The policy must include specific statements required by statute, including affirmations that the association will not engage in any of the prohibited conduct listed above, that adjacent owner approval is not required for solar installations, and that members may resubmit denied applications for reevaluation under the new law.

The policy must also clearly state the grounds on which an application may be denied and the application requirements members must follow.

Distribution Requirements

Once adopted, the association must provide a copy of the policy to all members within 30 days, make it available upon request, and post it on the association’s website if one exists.

Application and Approval Procedures

Under MCL 559.311, members who wish to install a solar energy system must submit a written application containing: the member’s name; the street address where the system will be installed; the name and contact information of the installer; an image showing the proposed layout; and a description of the system.

The association must approve or deny the application within 30 days after the policy is adopted. For applications submitted before the policy is adopted, the association has 120 days to respond.

Importantly, if the association fails to adopt a policy by the deadline or fails to respond to an application within the required timeframe, the member may proceed with installation and the association cannot impose fines or penalties.

Does the Act Apply to Condominium Associations?

One significant issue with HEPA is that the legislature did not define “homeowner association.” This has created uncertainty about whether the Act applies to condominium associations governed by the Michigan Condominium Act (MCL 559.101 et seq.).

The Michigan legal community is divided on this question. Some attorneys argue that because the legislature knows how to distinguish between HOAs and condominium associations in other statutes—and chose not to include condominium associations in HEPA—the Act should not apply to condos. Others contend that condominium associations should voluntarily comply to avoid potential liability until courts provide clarity.

Regardless of this uncertainty, the Act clearly does not apply to shared roofs (roofs serving more than one unit) or common areas. This means most traditional high-rise or attached condominium projects with shared roofs would not be subject to the solar panel provisions even if courts determine the Act applies to condominiums generally.

Enforcement and Penalties

HEPA includes meaningful enforcement mechanisms. Under MCL 559.315, if an association violates the Act, a member may bring a civil action for damages. A prevailing member may recover reasonable attorney fees and costs—making non-compliance a potentially expensive proposition for associations.

Additionally, any provision in an HOA policy that conflicts with the Act is automatically void and unenforceable.

Action Steps for HOA Boards

To ensure compliance and protect your association, boards should take the following steps before the April 1, 2026 deadline:

1. Review Existing Governing Documents: Identify any provisions that prohibit or restrict energy-saving improvements or solar panels. These provisions are now unenforceable and should be addressed in future amendments.

2. Adopt a Compliant Solar Energy Policy: Work with legal counsel to draft a policy that includes all required statutory provisions and stays within the bounds of what the Act permits.

3. Update Application Procedures: Ensure your architectural review or modification application process can accommodate solar panel requests within the 30-day response window.

4. Distribute the Policy: Provide copies to all members within 30 days of adoption and post it on your website.

5. Train Board Members and Managers: Ensure everyone involved in reviewing applications understands the new requirements and limitations.

Michigan’s Homeowner Energy Policy Act requires careful attention to statutory requirements and deadlines. We regularly advise Michigan HOA and condominium boards on compliance with state law, including drafting compliant solar energy policies, reviewing and amending governing documents, and counseling boards on application review procedures.

If your board needs assistance preparing for the April 1, 2026 deadline, or if you have questions about how HEPA affects your community, contact our office at (248) 716-3600 to schedule a consultation.

Frequently Asked Questions About the Michigan Homeowner Energy Policy Act

Disclaimer: This article provides general information about Michigan’s Homeowner Energy Policy Act and does not constitute legal advice. The application of law to specific circumstances requires individual analysis. Contact a qualified attorney for advice regarding your association’s particular situation.

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.

Key Takeaways

Michigan condo associations face higher premises-liability exposure for injuries on common elements—especially winter slip-and-falls.

• Co-owners using common elements can be treated as invitees when the association has possession/control under the governing documents—meaning the association owes reasonable care to protect them from dangerous conditions.
• “Open and obvious” is no longer a quick exit on duty; it is now evaluated under breach and comparative fault, so more cases can survive early dismissal.
• The best defense is boring consistency: documented inspections, disciplined repairs, tight vendor contracts, and an insurance program built for real-world claims.

If your condominium association controls the common elements, Michigan law increasingly treats common-area injury claims like standard premises-liability cases. Boards should assume more claims will be filed, fewer will be dismissed early, and defense costs will rise.  It is important for associations to have a consistent, documented maintenance and safety program.

What Changed in Michigan (and Why Boards Should Care)

1) Co-Owners Can Sue Associations for Common-Element Injuries

In Janini v London Townhouses Condominium Association (2024), the Michigan Supreme Court held that a condominium co-owner is an invitee when entering the common elements, and the condominium association owes a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect co-owners from dangerous conditions on the land. The Court also overruled prior appellate authority that had limited these claims.

2) The “Open and Obvious” Defense Is Weaker

In Kandil-Elsayed v F & E Oil, Inc. (consolidated with Pinsky v Kroger Co of Michigan), the Michigan Supreme Court shifted how “open and obvious” is used in premises-liability cases. Open-and-obvious conditions still matter, but the analysis generally belongs under breach and comparative fault rather than eliminating duty at the threshold. Practically, that can mean more cases survive early motion practice, increasing defense costs and settlement pressure.

The Board Playbook: 10 Practical Moves to Reduce Claims and Control Insurance Costs

Step 1: Map Your High-Claim Zones

Boards reduce risk faster when they identify where people actually get hurt.

• Sidewalks and trip edges (heaving, gaps, settled slabs)
• Stairs and handrails
• Parking lots (potholes, drainage, lighting)
• Entry mats and thresholds
• Clubhouse / pool / gym wet areas
• Mailboxes and dumpster routes (high-foot-traffic in winter)

Recommendation: Create a one-page “Risk Map” and have management update it 2x annually.

Step 2: Adopt a Written Common-Area Safety & Inspection Protocol

Consistency is defensibility. Inspection logs matter when claims are filed months later.

• Non-winter months: weekly walk-through checklist (common walkways, lighting, stairs)
• Winter months: increased frequency plus post-storm documentation
• Same-day work orders for hazards, with target completion dates

Common board mistake: “We inspect when someone complains.” Plaintiff’s lawyers will frame that as a lack of reasonable care.

Step 3: Tighten the Snow & Ice Plan

A written snow-and-ice plan plus vendor logs can cut claim frequency and claim severity.

• Trigger thresholds (inches, ice conditions, freeze-thaw events)
• Response times (e.g., within X hours after snowfall ends)
• Priority routes (main entries, mailboxes, dumpster routes, accessible paths)
• Materials (pre-treat policy, salt type, storage)
• Vendor documentation: time-stamped service logs and photos when feasible

Recommendation: Require vendors to deliver service logs automatically after each weather event.

Step 4: Fix Trip Hazards Like You Fix Leaks (Fast + Documented)

Trip hazards are easy to photograph and easy to argue were known—so boards should either repair them or document the plan and interim controls.

Rule of thumb: If you would warn a guest about it, you should probably repair it or mitigate it (and document what you did).

Step 5: Build an Incident Response Kit

Fast, factual documentation protects the association and helps the insurer defend the claim.

• Photograph the area promptly (lighting, weather, condition)
• Preserve video
• Identify witnesses
• Create an incident report (facts only—no blame or admissions)
• Notify the carrier promptly according to policy notice requirements

Common mistake: Casual emails like “we’ve known that sidewalk is bad for years.” That will likely become Exhibit A in a lawsuit.

Step 6: Hold a Once-a-Year Insurance Reality Check Meeting

Boards should treat insurance as an important financial shield and review the Association policy with a knowledgeable insurance agent to confirm risks and coverage.

• General liability limits and whether umbrella/excess is adequate
• Deductibles/SIR and budget impact
• Defense costs: inside vs. outside limits (varies by policy)
• Medical payments coverage (small but helpful for early resolution)
• Claim reporting and who communicates with the carrier

Step 7: Upgrade Vendor Contracts

If your contracts and endorsements are weak, the association can end up paying what the vendor should cover.

• Strong indemnity provisions
• Additional insured endorsement for the association (not just a certificate)
• Clear scope and performance standards (especially winter service)
• Proof of insurance plus endorsements on renewal

Common mistake: Accepting a certificate without the endorsement that actually grants additional insured status.

Step 8: Document Decisions Without Documenting Drama

Minutes should record decisions and action steps, not arguments, accusations, or speculation about fault.

Step 9: Align Budgets and Reserves With Safety Reality

Chronic walkway settlement, drainage, and lighting issues should be planned budget items—with interim controls documented until repairs are completed.

Step 10: Do a 30-Day “Safety Reset”

A 30-day reset creates real improvement quickly and demonstrates reasonable care.

• Approve an inspection checklist and schedule (winter vs. non-winter)
• Require winter vendor logs and response standards in writing
• Identify the top 10 trip hazards and schedule fixes (or document interim mitigation)
• Verify additional insured endorsements for key vendors
• Hold a 45-minute annual insurance review call (limits, deductibles, reporting)

Board Checklist

Maintenance & Documentation

• [ ] Risk map created and updated quarterly
• [ ] Inspection schedule adopted (winter vs non-winter)
• [ ] Work-order system tracks date reported → date fixed
• [ ] Photo log for recurring problem areas

Snow & Ice

• [ ] Trigger thresholds and response times in writing
• [ ] Priority routes defined
• [ ] Vendor provides time-stamped logs + post-event summary
• [ ] Pre-treat policy decided and documented

Insurance & Vendors

• [ ] GL limits reviewed; umbrella evaluated
• [ ] Claim reporting protocol documented
• [ ] Vendor contracts updated (indemnity + additional insured + scope)
• [ ] Endorsements collected for additional insured status

Frequently Asked Questions

When to Call Legal Counsel

• Multiple slip/trip incidents in the last 12-24 months
• Vendor pushback on additional insured endorsements or indemnity terms
• Known hazards delayed by budget timing without interim mitigation
• A claim letter arrives and the association lacks a clean paper trail
• Board disagreement on snow-and-ice standards, inspection frequency, or enforcement

Next Step

If your board wants a practical, defensible risk program, consider an Insurance + Maintenance Risk Review: a focused review of your governing documents, inspection practices, snow-and-ice plan, vendor contracts, and insurance structure—with a prioritized “fix list” that your manager can implement.

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

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.

Key Takeaways

• Collections works best when the board follows one written policy—every time.
• Your biggest risk isn’t “being tough”—it’s being inconsistent or sloppy with documentation.
• A predictable escalation path (notice → demand → lien/next step) reduces drama and increases recovery.
• Boards should separate business decisions (budgets/reserves) from personal conflict with owners.
• The fastest way to reduce disputes is to publish the policy and stick to it.

Board-Level Reality Check

Most boards don’t “choose” to become debt collectors. You’re volunteers trying to keep the community running, then a handful of owners stop paying, and suddenly your reserve study, roof replacement, and landscaping contract are all under pressure. The worst part: if your process isn’t consistent, the association can end up spending more in legal fees arguing about how it collected than about what is owed.

Step 1: Adopt a Written Collections Policy the Board Can Defend

A written policy is your “seatbelt”.  It keeps the board consistent, fair, and harder to attack.

A board collections policy should clearly state:

• When assessments are due and when an account is considered delinquent
• What happens at day 15/30/45/60/90 (or your chosen timeline)
• Late fees, interest, and administrative charges (if authorized)
• When accounts are turned over to counsel/collections
• Whether payment plans are allowed and on what terms
• When the board will consider lien/enforcement options
• How disputes are handled (ledger questions vs. “I’m mad at the board”)

Board mistake to avoid: “We handle it case-by-case.” That sounds fair, but it often becomes inconsistent.  And inconsistency is what can get boards into trouble.

Implementation tip: Adopt the policy by resolution and keep it with your governance documents. Publish a short “owner-facing summary” so it doesn’t feel like a surprise.

Step 2: Fix the #1 Hidden Problem—Your Ledger and Paper Trail

If the ledger is messy, every collections step becomes slower, riskier, and more expensive.

Before you escalate anything, confirm:

• The owner’s correct legal name and mailing address on file
• The assessment schedule (and any approved increases/special assessments)
• What was billed, what was paid, and how payments were applied
• Whether credits, waivers, or adjustments exist (and who approved them)
• Whether the association followed its own notice requirements

Board mistake to avoid: Sending a “demand” when the ledger has obvious holes. It undermines credibility and invites disputes.

Treat your delinquency list like financial statements: review it monthly, not “whenever it gets bad.”

Step 3: Use a Simple Escalation Timeline (and Don’t Negotiate Against Yourself)

Collections works when the timeline is predictable and boring.

Here’s a board-friendly model (adjust to your documents and management practices):

• Day 1–15: Courtesy reminder / statement
• Day 30: First delinquency notice (clear amount + due date)
• Day 45–60: Final notice + intent to turn over to counsel/collections
• Day 60–90: Turnover + formal demand + board decision point on next leverage step
• 90+ days: Consider lien/enforcement track + payment plan standards

Board mistake to avoid: Re-starting the clock every time the owner calls angry. Your process should be stable even when emotions are not.

Step 4: Payment Plans

Payment plans can increase recovery, but only if they are written, consistent, and enforceable.

A good board payment plan typically includes:

• A signed agreement (not informal emails)
• Current assessments must stay current (autopay is ideal)
• A fixed monthly catch-up amount
• A clear default clause (missed payment = immediate escalation)
• No waiver of lien/enforcement rights unless the board affirmatively decides otherwise

Step 5: Know Your Leverage Options (and When Each Makes Sense)

Common collection methods:

• Formal demand letter (often the first “serious” step)
• Lien
• Lawsuit for money judgment/ foreclosure of the lien
• Foreclosure options (when permitted and economically sensible)
• Post-judgment tools (garnishment, etc., if a judgment is obtained)

How boards should decide:

• Amount owed (small balance vs. meaningful arrearage)
• Owner behavior (communicative + consistent vs. chronic avoidance)
• Equity and collectability (is there a realistic path to recovery?)
• Community impact (fairness to paying owners, deterrence, precedent)

Board mistake to avoid: Threatening the “nuclear option” too early, then backing down. If you escalate, do it thoughtfully, and be prepared to follow through.

Board Checklist

• Adopt a written collections policy (resolution + owner summary).
• Review delinquency report monthly (board visibility matters).
• Audit ledger accuracy before escalation.
• Standardize notices and keep proof of sending.
• Establish payment plan standards (autopay + default clause).
• Decide a clear “turnover threshold” (days delinquent and/or amount).
• Separate ledger disputes from governance disputes (two tracks).
• Track attorney/collection costs as you go.
• Document board decisions in minutes.
• Revisit policy annually based on results.

When to Call a Michigan Condo/HOA Lawyer

Call counsel when:

• Your delinquency rate is rising and you need a system, not one-off letters.
• An owner claims selective enforcement, discrimination, or “the board can’t do this.”
• The owner demands a hearing, threatens suit, or escalates publicly.
• The account is large enough that a lien/enforcement decision has real risk.
• You’re seeing repeated hardship claims with inconsistent documentation.
• You have a disputed ownership/tenant situation, probate, bankruptcy, or title confusion.

Frequently Asked Questions About Condo/HOA Collections

Contact Us

If delinquencies are threatening your budget or reserves, schedule a focused Michigan condo/HOA collections strategy review. We’ll review your documents, your current delinquency profile, and recommend a clear escalation track your board can follow consistently.

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

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.