Fines, Hearings & Due Process in Michigan Condominiums: What Every Board Member and Property Manager Must Know

Michigan condo fines and hearings sit at the intersection of board authority and co-owner rights — and getting the process wrong carries consequences that extend well beyond a single disputed fine. For condominium associations throughout Oakland County, Macomb County, Wayne County, and the broader Metro Detroit region — from the high-rises of Detroit to the planned communities of Southfield, Novi, Troy, Livonia, and the Grosse Pointes — the authority to levy fines and enforce community rules is one of the most powerful tools a board possesses.

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.