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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 559.146

Restrictions and covenants.

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

CONDOMINIUM ACT


Act 59 of 1978


559.146 Restrictions and covenants.

Sec. 46.

    The developer or a co-owner may impose reasonable restrictions or covenants running with the land upon a condominium unit in the condominium project, in addition to the reasonable restrictions and covenants as may be contained in the condominium documents, so long as such restrictions and covenants are not otherwise prohibited by law and as long as they are consistent with the condominium documents. The restrictions and covenants may include provisions governing the joint or common ownership of condominium units in the condominium project and the basis upon which the usage of the condominium unit or condominium units may be shared from time to time by the joint or common owners thereof.

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

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2010–2025 · leading case: Maple Forest Condominium Ass'n v. Spencer (In Re Spencer)
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Maple Forest Condominium Ass'n v. Spencer (In Re Spencer) (2011) mied · cites it 2× “” Mich. Comp. Laws § 559.146 . Additionally, § 69 establishes the default rule that, absent a contrary provision in the condominium documents, common expenses will be divided proportionally among condominiums and that an owner “shall not be exempt from contributing .”
Maple Forest Condominium Ass'n v. Spencer (In Re Spencer) (2010) mieb · cites it 2× “Finally, the Michigan Condominium Act does provide for condominium documents to “impose reasonable restrictions or covenants running with the land upon a condominium unit-” Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 559.146 . But neither party in this case identified, nor could the Court find, any…”
20250127_C368767_33_368767.Opn.Pdf (2025) michctapp · cites it 5× “hat the bylaw was invalid because it was enacted for an improper purpose—namely, to single out Benoit—and therefore violated the Master Deed’s requirement that any amendment of condominium documents be for “a proper purpose,” and (2) that because the Fannie Mae restriction for…”
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.