Michigan Condo & HOA Law

I recently heard from a co-owner whose association has a member who is a part time employee and who also has AIDS. The co-owner feared that this employee may be a health threat to the community and wondered if they could fire the employee.

The association’s first mistake was to hire anyone who has an ownership interest in the condominium. They would make a second mistake by trying to fire an employee for having AIDS or HIV. Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, an individual who has AIDS is considered to be disabled and given protections. As a result, the employee is entitled to keep his job as long as he can perform his core duties with or without a reasonable accommodation. A reasonable accommodation is any modification or adjustment to a job work environment which enables an employee to carry out his job’s core duties. However, you are not required to provide a reasonable accommodation if it would cause undue hardship to your community. Also, the board should not assume that because the employee has AIDS, that he is a direct threat to the community’s health. An association is best advised to consult with their attorney who hopefully has experience with Civil Rights legislation.

Posted by Robert Meisner at 5:38 PM | Permalink

I recently heard about an association who hired an attorney to review their management contract, and had that attorney write the Management Company requesting modification. Instead of responding to the association’s attorney, the Management Company contacted the President of the Association directly to set up a meeting, in my judgment, to avoid dealing with the attorney. Many of the Board Members were upset with this action.

In my judgment, the actions of the Management Company are improper and show a certain lack of integrity. The Management Company was obviously trying to take advantage of what it perceived to be the naiveté of the Board by trying to circumvent the lawyer, no doubt suggesting to the Board that the assessment could save on legal fees while trying to take advantage of the Agent’s perceived superior negotiating position with the Association. If the board members of the association were smart, they would consider obtaining another Management Company who has better integrity, because this may be an example of what might occur in the future, since they will be handling the association’s funds and the board members are going to have trust them.

Posted by Robert Meisner at 1:35 PM | Permalink

I recently heard from a board member who is frustrated with his management company and wondered aloud why Michigan does not require certification and/or licensing for management companies.

Manager licensing continues to be a big issue for Community Associations around the country. California recently approved a five (5) year re-authorization of the Manager Certification Titling Act. Only eight (8) states, unfortunately, have some type of mandatory registration or licensing laws. Much to the disappointment of many community associations, Michigan is not one of those states. If you are interested in getting such a law in Michigan, write your legislators as well as the Governor. While some feel that such a law will be cumbersome upon management companies, the reality is that it may very well improve the caliber of Community Association managers.

Posted by Robert Meisner at 10:45 PM | Permalink

I recently heard from a community association board whose members were wondering about their association being able to negotiate a compensation package with one or more of the cable companies for access to their condominiums, and how this plays into a recent FCC ruling regarding exclusivity.

On behalf of many of the condominium associations this firm represents, we have been able to negotiate a compensation package with their cable company in exchange for the non-exclusive right of the cable company to provide service to the members of the condo Association. An exclusivity clause gives a video services provider the exclusive right to provide service in a community. If an Association has entered into an agreement for video services on behalf of its residents, that agreement could be affected, even if the community consists of single family homes. It is best to consult with a knowledgeable Community Association attorney before entering into a binding agreement with you cable provider.

Posted by Robert Meisner at 2:05 PM | Permalink

I recently heard from a co-owner who was appalled to hear that the condominium association attorney owns or had owned a portion of the association’s property management company. Of course his initial question to me was if I thought that was a conflict of interest.

The conflict of interest issue really depends on what interest the attorney had in what management company. Obviously, if the attorney owns an interest in the management company that currently represents the association, that would clearly be a conflict, and it should have been disclosed to in detail. Also, if the attorney formally represented the management company or another management company which may have had some involvement with the association, that may indeed represent a conflict. The fact that the attorney owned an interest in the management company, which may have resulted in him or her getting referrals, should be a source of concern to any particular association, and it should demand full details from the attorney as to when and where that attorney has or had an interest in the management company. For those of you who are interested, I will be writing about such things in an upcoming publication regarding management companies.

Posted by Robert Meisner at 8:48 AM | Permalink

In these tough economic times, many associations are experiencing a high volume of foreclosures. I recently heard from a condo owner who stated that his condominium project has a few units under foreclosure and the monthly dues are not being paid. In the meantime, he wondered if all co-owners will incur a special assessment to pay for the foreclosed condominium dues, and, if so, would they be reimbursed for the monies paid on the foreclosed units.

The answer depends on the financial condition of the association. If you are concerned about such a thing happening at your association, it is imperative that you discover what the financial condition is at your association. If the association is financially sound, there will be no need to levy additional assessments to meet its needs. However, if indeed a special assessment is levied, I do not believe that co-owners would be reimbursed for those funds, unless, that was a condition precedent to the additional assessment being levied, which would normally not be a good idea.

Posted by Robert Meisner at 10:39 PM | Permalink

I recently heard from a co-owner who is trying to sell her condo unit which happens to be on the first floor. The co-owner directly above her unit owns a small barking dog which the realtor says has prevented the sale of the unit. The first floor owner has written to the unit owner above her twice and tried to call her but she is not responding.

In my opinion, the owner of the first floor unit should check the condominium documents to see if there is a limitation on the maintenance of dogs. Usually there is a provision that precludes dogs from “excessively barking.” Even though “excessively barking” is, of course, a subjective term, the unit owner below should complain to the association and seek the association’s assistance in attempting to maintain some control over the barking of the dog to the extent that is possible since it is apparently hindering her chances of selling her unit.

Posted by Robert Meisner at 8:39 AM | Permalink

Not long ago I heard from a board member who told of concern among the board because a committee chair has taken it upon herself to set up an interactive website using the association’s name on the home page. The website offers a calendar of association events and a downloadable architectural request form. Neighbors are having conversations on the website and the board members wish to have her take the site down because the association attorney is worried about the association’s potential liability for what residents might say. She has apparently refused to do so. The board member asked my opinion on what recourse the board might have.

It really depends on who owns the website and whether or not the association’s name is being used without its permission. I would suggest that if in fact the website purports to claim that it is an association website, that the association board may have a right to pursue the termination of the website as we have done in various instances on behalf of Association clients. The Association attorney should be consulted as to what actions he or she would recommend with regard to terminating the website.

Posted by Robert Meisner at 5:26 PM | Permalink