Revocation of restrictive covenants; Timeliness; Effective date; Brown v Martin; Uniformity; Reasonableness

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff-Schwintek, the court held that the trial court did not err by concluding there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendant-HTB’s revocation of the restrictive covenants was valid. Schwintek argued that “HTB failed to revoke the restrictive covenants because the revocation was untimely, nonuniform, and unreasonable.” Schwintek first contended the trial court erred in concluding that the revocation began on the next 10-year renewal date, which was 1/1/21. The trial court’s decision on this issue was based on the court’s decision in Brown. The restrictions automatically renewed on 1/1/11. The next 10-year period was due to expire on 12/31/20. The revocation was executed and recorded on 10/23/20. “Similar to the provision at issue in Brown, the plain language of the restrictive covenants provides for an automatic 10-year renewal ‘unless the owners of more than [75%] of the real estate . . . shall execute and record . . . an instrument revoking or modifying such restrictions.’ Because the revocation was executed and recorded during the renewal period, it became effective after the renewal period ended, which was on” 1/1/21. Schwintek further asserted the trial court erred in concluding that the revocation applied to the entire industrial park. However, the court agreed with “the trial court’s determination that the plain language of the revocation leads to the conclusion that it revoked the entire restrictive covenant and applied uniformly to all of the lots in the industrial park.” The court also rejected Schwintek’s substantive reasonableness argument, noting that Michigan’s “appellate courts have not adopted the ‘substantively reasonable’ requirement that Schwintek” relied on from case law in other jurisdictions. And it found it unnecessary to address whether HTB’s proposed facility violated the covenants, because they were successfully revoked effective 1/1/21. Affirmed.