e-Journal Summary

e-Journal Number : 86088
Opinion Date : 07/13/2026
e-Journal Date : 07/14/2026
Court : Michigan Court of Appeals
Case Name : Letvin v. The Village at Grand Traverse Commons Condo. Ass'n
Practice Area(s) : Negligence & Intentional Tort Real Property
Judge(s) : Korobkin, M.J. Kelly, and Patel
Full PDF Opinion
Issues:

Premises liability; Condominium association; Short-term rental guest; Common area; Invitee; Licensee; Duty; Janini v London Townhouses Gabrielson v Woods Condo Ass’n, Inc; Stanley v Town Square Coop; First-out rule; Breach; Snow & ice; Kandil-Elsayed v F & E Oil, Inc; Quinlivan v The Great Atl & Pac Tea Co, Inc

Summary

In an issue of first impression, the court held that a short-term rental guest of a condominium unit owner is an invitee of the condominium association when injured in a common area maintained by the association. Plaintiff slipped and fell on ice in a condominium-complex parking lot while staying in a unit rented through Airbnb. The court first concluded the trial court erred by treating plaintiff as a licensee. It reasoned that Janini abrogated the relevant part of Gabrielson by rejecting the premise that condominium associations owe no premises-liability duty to unit owners in common areas and by analogizing the condominium association-co-owner relationship to the landlord-tenant relationship. Relying on Stanley, the court explained that part of the consideration paid to a condominium association supports maintaining common areas for unit owners and their guests. It held that “a short-term rental guest of a condominium unit owner is an invitee of the condominium association on the common elements of the premises that the association maintains.” The court next held that genuine issues of material fact existed as to breach. Although defendant’s snow-removal contractor had salted areas of the Village, plaintiff testified the parking lot was covered in ice, photographs showed ice in parts of the lot, and testimony suggested defendant’s board took “no responsibility for monitoring” the contractor’s work. The court concluded a jury had to decide whether defendant took “reasonable steps within a reasonable time” to protect invitees from the hazards of ice and snow. Reversed and remanded.

Full PDF Opinion