Michigan Springfield v. Deer Run Estates (2025): Bylaws

Quick Answer

In Springfield v Deer Run Estates Condominium Association (Mich App, July 17, 2025, unpublished per curiam), the Court of Appeals held that former co-owners had standing to sue under MCL 559.215 and that condominium bylaws, where the association is a nonprofit corporation, are a binding contract. It reinstated their breach-of-contract claim over a board order to rehome their dogs without the hearing the bylaws promised.

It upheld dismissal of their "selective enforcement" claim because they cited no law prohibiting it. The case was decided on the pleadings only, so the court did not decide whether the association actually breached the bylaws.

At a Glance

The Dispute

The Springfields bought a home in Deer Run Estates, a Barry County condominium, in May 2022. In February 2023 their Rottweilers escaped their yard and attacked a neighbor's dog. The association's board wrote that it had weighed the injuries, the possibility of injury to a child, the dogs' age and breed, the "progressive nature of their behavior," and resident feedback, and "mandated" that the dogs be removed and rehomed or be euthanized within 20 days, with proof of compliance. Rather than comply, the Springfields sold their unit and moved.

They sued in June 2023. They alleged breach of contract, because Sections 12.01 and 12.02 of the bylaws required notice, an opportunity to defend, and a hearing before the board, and selective enforcement, because other dog and bylaw violations went unenforced. The association moved for dismissal under MCR 2.116(C)(8), arguing the bylaws were not a contract, the Springfields lacked standing as former co-owners under MCL 559.207, and Michigan does not recognize selective enforcement claims by co-owners. The trial court agreed and dismissed both counts.

What the Court Held

Standing

The trial court's apparent reasoning relied on MCL 559.207, which says a co-owner may sue to compel the association and its directors to enforce the condominium documents. The Court of Appeals called that a mistake of law because the Springfields sought damages, not enforcement. It held they had standing under MCL 559.215, which lets "[a] person or association of co-owners adversely affected by a violation of or failure to comply with this act, rules promulgated under this act, or any provision of an agreement or a master deed" bring an action. Bylaws are recorded as part of the master deed under MCL 559.153, so the Springfields alleged adverse effect from a violation of the master deed.

Bylaws are a contract

The trial court had reasoned that case law says bylaws are interpreted like a contract, not that they are one. The panel disagreed. The association was "organized as a nonprofit corporation" under the bylaws, and corporate bylaws "constitute a binding contract between the corporation and its shareholders." It relied on Conlin v Upton, 313 Mich App 243, 255 (2015), which held that validly promulgated bylaws are a binding contractual agreement between an entity and its members. The condominium bylaws were therefore a binding contract.

Breach of contract

Section 7.05(f) allowed the association to "remove or cause any animal to be removed" that violates the restrictions, and separately required "notice and hearing" before specially assessing co-owners for damage. The trial court read that to mean no hearing was needed for removal. The panel held that Section 12.02 requires, upon any alleged violation, notice and "an opportunity to appear before the Board and offer evidence in defense of the alleged violation," on at least 10 days from service. Reading Section 7.05(f) to override it would make Section 12.02 meaningless as to animals. Taking the complaint's allegations as true, it stated a breach-of-contract claim, and the court reversed.

Selective enforcement

The court affirmed dismissal. The Springfields cited "no caselaw or statute prohibiting 'breed discrimination' by a homeowners' association or otherwise prohibiting selective enforcement of condominium bylaws," so the issue was deemed abandoned. Their alternative theory under the Nonprofit Corporation Act (MCL 450.2489(1)) failed because they pleaded no facts showing how the association's conduct met that statute. The court also noted the trial court erred in saying no enforcement action had been taken, because ordering the dogs removed was an exercise of bylaw authority, but affirmed because the right result was reached.

Why It Matters for Associations

• Our reading: the opinion signals that a hearing procedure written into bylaws is something the association has to follow, even when another section authorizes the action.
• Former owners may still sue for damages under MCL 559.215 for alleged violations, according to this panel.
• The court did not rule that the board's decision was wrong or that the Springfields would win. It only held the contract claim could proceed.
• Because the opinion is unpublished, it is not binding precedent. Whether bylaws of an unincorporated association would be treated as a contract was not addressed.

Related Michigan Law

• Co-owner suits to enforce documents (MCL 559.207, 559.215)
• Janini v. London Townhouses
• HOA violation enforcement in Michigan
• Fair housing and assistance animals

Board Checklist

• Read your enforcement bylaws for notice and hearing steps and follow them for every alleged violation.
• Give the written notice by the delivery method the bylaws name.
• Allow the owner at least the response time the bylaws set before any board decision.
• Record the board's reasoning and any hearing in the minutes.
• Have counsel check that animal and nuisance provisions do not conflict with the hearing section.
• Apply any assistance-animal request separately under fair housing rules.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can a former co-owner sue the condominium association?

This panel held that former co-owners who sought damages had standing under MCL 559.215 as persons adversely affected by an alleged violation of the master deed.

Are condominium bylaws a contract in Michigan?

This panel said that where the association is a nonprofit corporation, its bylaws are a binding contract. The opinion is unpublished.

Did the court say the board's dog order was unlawful?

No. It decided only that the breach-of-contract claim was adequately pleaded and could continue.

Did the selective enforcement claim survive?

No. It was dismissed because the owners cited no law prohibiting selective enforcement.

Does this case require a hearing before every board action?

No. It turned on Section 12.02 of these bylaws, which required notice and a hearing for alleged violations. Your bylaws control.

Where This Comes From

We read the full text of the Court of Appeals opinion in Docket No. 368044 (July 17, 2025), posted on Justia and the State Bar of Michigan site. We did not check later history, such as the remand outcome or any application for leave to appeal. The opinion is unpublished and has no reporter citation.

How APM Helps

Association Property Managers manages condominium and HOA communities across Michigan from our East Lansing office, with flat, published pricing. See our Michigan service area, browse every Michigan state-law guide, or request a free proposal. Laws and documents differ by community, and we review your master deed and bylaws when we build your proposal.

Legal disclaimer: This article is general information, not legal advice. Laws change and associations differ. Confirm the current statute text and how it applies to your governing documents with a licensed Michigan attorney before acting.