When amending condominium documents, one of the primary criteria is that the amendment must be reasonable in relation to the operation of the association and the condominium. That, of course, applies to any provision in the Bylaws.
Unfortunately, I have recently observed that certain community association attorneys have gone beyond the pale in protecting Boards of Directors who make bad decisions. Apparently, this is a continuation of what the Michigan legislature did in a lame duck session in 2014, giving boards of directors almost total immunity, regardless of how heinous their acts or omissions may be. Unfortunately, the lobbying group for community associations dropped the ball on that, but hopefully, with a new legislature, more fairness can be legislatively implemented, and our firm hopes to be significant in it.
For example, we have now seen a provision prepared by a competitor law firm which precludes any co-owners from contesting a decision of the board not to file an insurance claim when there is adequate coverage for the association, with penalties for the affected co-owner if they even try to contest the so-called “business judgment” of the board. That is, in my opinion, as a co-draftsperson of the 1978 Michigan Condominium Act and the 2001-2002 amendments, an unconscionable overreach which should not be countenanced. Another provision I have seen places a statute of limitations of one year on whether an amendment can be challenged by a co-owner when the statute of limitations is usually at least six years and possibly more under other legal theories. Every association should be mindful of abuses which may be recommended by certain law firm(s) to ingratiate themselves to the board of directors at the expense of the association and co-owners.
Robert Meisner
