Quick Answer
In PCJ Investments, LLC v Richard Rowhouses Association (Mich App, August 13, 2026, unpublished per curiam), the Court of Appeals held that 14 unbuilt units reverted to the general common elements 10 years after construction began, in 2014, because they were neither complete nor withdrawn. A proposed master deed amendment meant to reinstate them never took effect because it was never recorded.
The court also held no replat was required for the reversion, rejected an equitable estoppel argument and a facial constitutional challenge to MCL 559.167(3), and affirmed. The opinion is unpublished and not binding precedent.
At a Glance
| Item | Detail |
|---|---|
| Case | PCJ Investments, LLC v Richard Rowhouses Association (Triple Properties Detroit, LLC, defendant/cross-plaintiff-appellant) |
| Court and date | Michigan Court of Appeals, August 13, 2026; Docket No. 371319; appeal from Wayne Circuit Court, LC No. 21-009946-CB |
| Panel | Ackerman, P.J., and Bazzi and Lievense, JJ.; per curiam |
| Publication | Unpublished. No reporter citation |
| Statutes | MCL 559.167(2), (3) (former version), 559.191 |
| Outcome | Affirmed; costs to appellees |
The Dispute
The case concerned whether units 13 through 26 of Richard Rowhouses, a condominium project, "reverted to the general common elements 10 years after construction commenced because of a lack of completion." The master deed was executed August 13, 2003, and planned three buildings and 42 units, with units 7 through 42 labeled "need not be built." The developer recorded a notice of commencement of construction on March 16, 2004.
The subject units passed through foreclosure and assignments of developer rights to Triple Properties. A 2015 sale to a third party never closed. A proposed first amendment to the master deed intended to reinstate the units was reported in 2017 to have enough co-owner votes, but the association's counsel never recorded it, citing concerns that the buyer never signed, the closing never occurred, and the new board opposed the project. In 2019 Triple purportedly conveyed the units to PCJ, and a title insurer raised the reversion issue in December 2020. PCJ sued.
The trial court granted summary disposition to the association and denied Triple's motion. A settlement was placed on the record in February 2024, and Triple later refused to sign the written agreement and refused to make a second settlement payment. Triple appealed.
What the Court Held
Reversion in 2014
The version of MCL 559.167(3) applied by the court said that if the developer has not completed units identified as "need not be built" within a period ending 10 years after construction commenced, the developer may withdraw the undeveloped portions, and if it does not, "those undeveloped lands shall remain part of the project as general common elements and all rights to construct units upon that land shall cease." The court held the units reverted in 2014 "because the units were neither complete nor withdrawn from the project."
Triple argued that partly built units were not "undeveloped." The court rejected this: the units needed to be "completed," the record did not clearly show what work was done, and under Elizabeth Trace Condo Ass'n v American Global Enterprises, Inc, 340 Mich App 435 (2022), "a unit that has not been completed is 'undeveloped.'" It held that the 2016 amendment (2016 PA 233), which defines "undeveloped land" differently, "is irrelevant to this case," citing Cove Creek Condo Ass'n v Vista Land & Home Dev, LLC, 330 Mich App 679 (2019).
The unrecorded amendment
MCL 559.191 says an amendment "shall not be effective until the amendment is recorded." Because the first amendment was never recorded, the units were never reinstated and "the 10-year statutory period did not reset" in January 2017.
No replat required
Quoting Cove Creek, the court agreed that "there is nothing linking this requirement to Subsection (3) or conditioning the 'reversion' in Subsection (3) on that requirement." The association did not have to record a replat.
Equitable estoppel and constitutionality
- Estoppel failed because "the reversion was automatic," and alternatively the record did not show the association acted inequitably. Acquiescence and laches theories were not raised below and were waived.
- Bound by Cove Creek and Elizabeth Trace, the court rejected the due process and takings challenge. Cove Creek reasoned that the statute conditioned retaining a property right on reasonable conditions, and the lapse resulted from the owner's failure to act within 10 years.
Settlement and jurisdiction
The court held the settlement terms placed on the record satisfied MCR 2.507(G) and that Triple's refusal to pay reflected a change of heart. It also rejected PCJ's argument that the court lacked jurisdiction.
Why It Matters for Associations
- Our reading: for projects that fall under the earlier version of the statute, the 10-year clock can run out automatically, and the court treated the effect as self-executing without any recorded declaration by the association.
- An amendment voted on by co-owners does not take effect until recorded under MCL 559.191. Boards and counsel should confirm recording was completed for any amendment.
- The decision is about one project. The current statute, as amended in 2016, uses a different formulation (for 10 years after the recording of the master deed), and the court said the 2016 amendment was irrelevant here.
- Because the opinion is unpublished, it is not binding. The published cases it relies on, Cove Creek and Elizabeth Trace, are the stronger authority.
Related Michigan Law
- Charter Township of Fenton v. Fenton Orchards
- Reversion of undeveloped land (MCL 559.167)
- Amending the master deed and bylaws
- Developer turnover timeline (MCL 559.152)
Board Checklist
- Identify any units or phases in your master deed labeled "need not be built."
- Find the recorded date of the master deed and any notice of commencement of construction.
- Confirm every approved amendment was actually recorded.
- Ask counsel which version of MCL 559.167 applies to your project.
- Check title records for units that may have reverted to general common elements.
- Do not rely on an unpublished opinion alone.
Frequently Asked Questions
Did the unbuilt units revert automatically?
The court said the reversion was automatic, "by operation of law," under the version of MCL 559.167(3) it applied, because the units were neither completed nor withdrawn within 10 years.
Did a voted amendment save the units?
No. It was never recorded, and under MCL 559.191 an amendment is not effective until recorded.
Was a replat required?
The court held the association was not required to record a replat for the reversion.
Was the statute unconstitutional?
The court rejected a facial challenge, following Cove Creek and Elizabeth Trace.
Is this opinion binding?
No. It is unpublished.
Where This Comes From
We read the full text of the Court of Appeals opinion in Docket No. 371319 (August 13, 2026) from courts.michigan.gov. The opinion is unpublished and has no reporter citation. We did not read Cove Creek or Elizabeth Trace directly, only as quoted in this opinion, and did not check later history.
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.
Ready to work with Association Property Managers?
Get a free, itemized proposal for your community — delivered within 3 business days.
Request a Free Proposal
