Dispute over a condominium project’s imposition of a yearly flat fee for co-owners’ use of its adjacent recreational facilities; MCL 559.234; MI Admin Code, R 559.111(b); Disclosure statement; MCL 559.184a; Action for relief; MCL 559.215; Whether a rule was validly promulgated; Conlin v Upton; Discovery sanctions; Attorney fees; MCR 2.313(A)(5) & (B)(2); Frivolous filing; MCR 1.109(E); MCR 2.625(A)(2); MCL 600.2591; Yee v Shiawassee Cnty Bd of Comm’rs; Civil contempt; In re Contempt of Calcutt

The court held that the trial court did not err by granting plaintiff-condominium co-owner summary disposition of his claim alleging defendant-condominium developer violated rules and bylaws by imposing a recreational use fee on condominium co-owners, or by granting plaintiff sanctions. Plaintiff sued defendant claiming he should not be required to pay a yearly flat fee to use defendant’s recreational facilities adjacent to the condominium project. The trial court found defendant “violated administrative rules by imposing the fees and awarded a reimbursement of fees paid by plaintiff.” It also found defendant “violated the condominium bylaws by imposing a flat fee because the bylaws allowed only for a fee covering maintenance and repair of the facilities.” On appeal, the court rejected defendant’s argument that the trial court erred by granting summary disposition for plaintiff on three counts of his complaint seeking a declaratory judgment and damages related to the usage fees and asserting his right to inspect the books and records of the recreational facilities. It rejected defendant’s attempt “to create a ‘loophole’ whereby if a condominium co-owner is directly billed by a facility, that facility need not comply with condominium statutes and rules.” In addition, “the recreational facilities at issue are not owned by the co-owners collectively; instead, they are owned solely by” defendant, who was “a ‘third party’ in its role as the owner of the facilities.” The trial court, in finding a violation of “R 559.111(b), did not err by focusing on” defendant’s role as the developer. Given the rule violations, “the fee provision was not ‘validly promulgated[.]’” The court also upheld the trial court’s grant of attorney fees and costs to plaintiff in connection with granting motions to compel discovery, noting that in light of the evidence “and the deferential standard of review, . . . the trial court’s decision to award sanctions was not outside the range of reasonable and principled outcomes.” However, the trial court did err and abuse its discretion by including $695 in the award for three particular days of legal work. Finally, the court rejected plaintiff’s contentions that the trial court should have granted him sanctions because defendant advanced frivolous defenses to two of the counts in his complaint, and should have sanctioned defendant for violating trial court rulings. It was “not left with a firm and definite conviction that the trial court made a mistake in concluding that [defendant] did not act frivolously in defending against” the two counts, and there was no basis for finding error as to the alleged violations. Affirmed, but remanded for a recalculation of costs and fees.