Dispute over condo bylaws; Standing; The Condominium Act; MCL 559.207; MCL 559.215; Alleged violations of bylaws recorded as part of the Master Deed under MCL 559.153; “Co-owner”; MCL 559.106(1); Breach of contract; In re Raymond T Conley Trust; Whether condo bylaws are an enforceable contract; Allied Supermarkets, Inc v Grocer’s Dairy Co; Conlin v Upton; Selective enforcement of condo bylaws; “Breed discrimination”; Alleged violation of the Nonprofit Corporation Act; MCL 450.2489(1)

The court held that the trial court erred by finding plaintiffs-condo and dog owners lacked standing and by dismissing their breach of contract claim against defendant-condo association, but did not err by dismissing their selective enforcement of Bylaws claim. Plaintiffs sued defendant for breach of contract and selective enforcement of its Bylaws after they sold their condo and moved when defendant demanded they either rehome or euthanize their two Rottweilers following an incident with a neighbor. The trial court granted summary disposition for defendant. On appeal, the court agreed with plaintiffs that the trial court erred by finding they did not have standing to bring an action for breach of contract and selective enforcement against defendant. It noted they “sought damages for defendant’s alleged violations of the Bylaws, which are required to be recorded as part of the Master Deed in accordance with MCL 559.153 of the Condominium Act. Plaintiffs are therefore persons who have alleged that they were adversely affected by a violation of, or a failure to comply with, the Master Deed. Under MCL 559.215, they had standing to bring an action for relief.” The court also agreed with plaintiffs that the trial court erred by finding the Bylaws were not an enforceable contract. The “Bylaws at issue in this case constitute a binding contract, and the trial court erred by holding otherwise.” The court also agreed, in part, with plaintiffs that the trial court erred by granting summary disposition for defendant and dismissing their claims. As to their breach of contract claim, when “viewed in a light most favorable to plaintiffs, the allegations in their complaint adequately state a claim for breach of said contract. The trial court erred by ruling in defendant’s favor on this claim.” However, as to their selective enforcement claim, they “cited no caselaw or statute prohibiting ‘breed discrimination’ by a homeowners’ association or otherwise prohibiting selective enforcement of condominium bylaws. To the extent that plaintiffs simply claim ‘selective enforcement,’ we deem this issue abandoned.” Plaintiffs also did not adequately state “a statutory claim of shareholder oppression.” Finally, while the trial court erred by finding defendant took no enforcement action against plaintiffs, because they “failed to plead any viable legal basis for their selective-enforcement claim, [it] reached the right result, albeit for the wrong reason.” Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.