Action seeking foreclosure for violation of condominium bylaws; Alleged evidentiary errors; MRE 101 & 1101(a); Harmless error; People v Hill; Reasonableness of fines; MCL 559.206(c); Rasheed v Chrysler Corp

The court upheld the $135,000 judgment amount derived from the trial court’s determination that the fines assessed against defendant-condominium owner by plaintiff-association were reasonable. Plaintiff sued defendant to foreclose on defendant’s property to satisfy unpaid fines it accrued for violating plaintiff’s bylaws by failing to complete construction within 12 months from the time construction began. Ultimately, the trial court determined that a fine of $1,000 a month was reasonable and entered judgment in favor of plaintiff in the amount of $135,000. On appeal, the court rejected defendant’s argument that the trial court erred by excluding photographic and video evidence related to the state of the condominium development because defendant failed to address the basis of the trial court’s decision. Specifically, defendant did “not explain why it was error for the trial court to reject the proposed admission into evidence of photographs and videos that depicted the home after the relevant time periods at issue in the case, or why it was error for the trial court to refuse to relitigate the issue of the home’s completeness.” It also rejected defendant’s claim that the trial court erred by considering documentary evidence that was attached to plaintiff’s motion for summary disposition but not admitted at the evidentiary hearing, noting any error was harmless, and the trial court’s opinion made no mention of photographs. Finally, the court rejected defendant’s contention that the trial court erred by determining that the fines imposed by plaintiff were reasonable. Ultimately, the court was “not definitely and firmly convinced that the trial court made a mistake in determining that the fines imposed on defendant were reasonable.” Affirmed.