Whether condo development units had reverted to general common elements; The former version of MCL 559.167(3) (old § 67); Whether the units were considered “developed” by definition as “site” condos; Saugatuck Dunes Coastal Alliance v Saugatuck Twp; “Structure” condos; Whether the units were considered “developed” on the basis the roads & utilities had been installed

Holding that the condo development units at issue were not “developed” for purposes of former MCL 559.167(3) (old § 67), the court affirmed summary disposition for defendant-condo association in this dispute over units plaintiff-township obtained via tax foreclosure sales. There was no question that the “units were not designated as ‘must be built,’ were in fact never built, and were not timely withdrawn under old § 67.” Plaintiff asserted the trial court erred in granting defendant summary disposition “because under old § 67, only ‘undeveloped’ units are subject to reversion to general common elements, plus the units at issue were considered ‘developed’ by definition as site condominiums and because the roads and utilities had in fact been developed.” The court disagreed. First, giving “effect to every word, phrase, and clause within the master deed, amendments to the master deed, and the project’s bylaws, the units at issue were not site” condos. Interpreting the condo “documents as creating both structure condominiums and site condominiums would render certain language in the condominium documents meaningless; it would also create an unmanageable situation for defendant and any traditional condominium co-owners regarding the maintenance, repair, and replacement of structural components.” Thus, it concluded the trial court did not err in ruling that the units were not site condos, and “not considered ‘developed’ on this basis.” The court also rejected plaintiff’s argument the trial court erred because the units “were considered ‘developed’ as the roads and utilities had in fact been installed.” The court noted the only evidence introduced as to “the common-elements’ construction was: (1) a brief statement in plaintiff’s answer to defendant’s motion for summary disposition, indicating that the roads and utilities were built; and (2) plaintiff counsel’s brief statement at the motion-hearing, indicating ‘All the roads are in. All of the utilities are in . . . .’ There are no pictures, graphs, affidavits, or the like proving the construction of any roads or utilities. Accordingly, the trial court did not err by determining that the units were not considered ‘developed’ on this basis.”