Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 559 / Act 59 of 1978

Mich. Comp. Laws § 559.107

Definitions; L to M.

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

CONDOMINIUM ACT


Act 59 of 1978


559.107 Definitions; L to M.

Sec. 7.

    (1) "Leasehold condominium" means a condominium project in which each co-owner owns an estate for years in all or any part of the condominium project if the leasehold interests will expire naturally at the same time.

    (2) "Limited common elements" means a portion of the common elements reserved in the master deed for the exclusive use of less than all of the co-owners.

    (3) "Mobile home condominium project" means a condominium project in which mobile homes as defined in section 30a of Act No. 300 of the Public Acts of 1949, being section 257.30a of the Michigan Compiled Laws, are intended to be located upon separate sites which constitute individual condominium units.

History: 1978, Act 59, Eff. July 1, 1978

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2010–2024 · leading case: Paris Meadows, LLC v. City of Kentwood
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Paris Meadows, LLC v. City of Kentwood (2010) michctapp · cites it 2× “MCL 559.107(2). Although a developer may retain rights to withdraw or develop land within the project, until it records an amended master deed the land remains part of the project and, under MCL 559.”
the Mt Vernon Park Association v. Patricia Williams (2015) michctapp · cites it 2× “” MCL 559.107(2). The clear and unambiguous language in Article IV of the master deed reflects the grantors’ plain intent regarding the development’s common elements.”
the Mt Vernon Park Association v. Chantelle Clark (2015) michctapp · cites it 2× “” MCL 559.107(2). The clear and unambiguous language in Article IV of the master deed reflects the grantors’ plain intent regarding the development’s common elements.”
Carola Condominium Association v. Dustin Chappell (2016) michctapp “103(7), and “limited common elements” as “a portion of the common elements reserved in the master deed for the exclusive use of less than all of the co-owners,” MCL 559.107(2). “Except to the extent otherwise expressly provided by this act, the undivided interest in the common…”
Daoud Mousa Janini v. London Townhouses Condominium Association (2024) mich “” MCL 559.107(2). This case does not involve any limited common elements of the condominium project, and the majority opinion seemingly would not extend invitee status to condominium co-owners not actually invited onto the limited common elements given that they are for the…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 559.107(2) — 5 cases
Paris Meadows, LLC v. City of Kentwood (2010) michctapp “MCL 559.107(2). Although a developer may retain rights to withdraw or develop land within the project, until it records an amended master deed the land remains part of the project and, under MCL 559.”
the Mt Vernon Park Association v. Patricia Williams (2015) michctapp “” MCL 559.107(2). The clear and unambiguous language in Article IV of the master deed reflects the grantors’ plain intent regarding the development’s common elements.”
the Mt Vernon Park Association v. Chantelle Clark (2015) michctapp “” MCL 559.107(2). The clear and unambiguous language in Article IV of the master deed reflects the grantors’ plain intent regarding the development’s common elements.”
Carola Condominium Association v. Dustin Chappell (2016) michctapp “103(7), and “limited common elements” as “a portion of the common elements reserved in the master deed for the exclusive use of less than all of the co-owners,” MCL 559.107(2). “Except to the extent otherwise expressly provided by this act, the undivided interest in the common…”
Daoud Mousa Janini v. London Townhouses Condominium Association (2024) mich “” MCL 559.107(2). This case does not involve any limited common elements of the condominium project, and the majority opinion seemingly would not extend invitee status to condominium co-owners not actually invited onto the limited common elements given that they are for the…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.