Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

FRANKLIN COMMONS, L.L.C., Plaintiff-Appellant, v HELMAN WOODS SUBDIVISION HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, Defendant-Appellee, and LASALLE BANK and RBK INVESTMENTS, L.L.C., Defendants.

UNPUBLISHED November 4, 2010

No. 292952 Oakland Circuit Court LC No. 2008-089966-CZ

Before: WILDER, P.J., and SERVITTO and SHAPIRO, JJ. PER CURIAM. Plaintiff, Franklin Commons, L.L.C., appeals as of right an order granting summary disposition in favor of defendant, Helman Woods Subdivision Homeowners Association ("HWSHA")1. We affirm. A. FACTS In 1951, Hannan Real Estate Exchange and Grandville Construction Company ("Grandville") entered into a land contract. The property, called Helman Woods Subdivision, was comprised of Lots 1-78 and "Outlot A", and a plat for the same was thereafter recorded. In 1952, Grandville recorded building and use restrictions concerning the property. Among them was a restriction limiting construction to a single-family dwelling and associated structures on

The other defendants, RBK Investments and LaSalle Bank, have no role in this appeal. There are references to dealings with Michigan National Bank, infra, but LaSalle Bank subsequently acquired Michigan National Bank.

1

-1-

each lot. The restrictions did, however, permit changes upon the approval of both the "seller or his duly authorized representative" and the abutting lot owners. In 1953, after receiving permission from the appropriate authority, Grandville subdivided Outlot A into lots 79-84, calling the same "Helman Woods No. 1." In 1974, two of the lots in the subdivision (fronting Telegraph Road) were rezoned from residential to commercial use, despite objections from homeowners within the subdivision. Twelve years later, a project began to construct a bank on the rezoned lots. The project was, however, abandoned prior to its completion. When Michigan National Bank expressed an interest in purchasing the lots and completing the project, HWSHA worked with Michigan National Bank to come to an agreement as to how the bank could conduct business on the rezoned lots while still protecting the residential neighborhood comprised of the remaining lots in the subdivision. The matter was resolved through entry of a consent judgment in 1993. In 2002, plaintiff obtained title to Lots 73 and 79-84. Seeking to commercially develop the property, plaintiff filed this lawsuit seeking "declaratory, injunctive, and other equitable relief" to establish that HWSHA could not enforce any deed restrictions or covenants limiting the use of its property to residential purposes. Plaintiff moved for summary disposition, and defendant thereafter moved for summary disposition in its own favor, asserting that the restrictions recorded in 1952 were, in fact, enforceable as to plaintiff's property. The trial court agreed with defendant, denying plaintiff's summary disposition motion and entering summary disposition in defendant's favor. This appeal followed. B. HWSHA'S STANDING TO ENFORCE COVENANTS Plaintiff first argues that HWSHA lacks standing to be able to enforce any restrictive covenants. We disagree. Whether a party has standing to assert a claim constitutes a question of law that is reviewed de novo. Miller v Citizens Ins Co, ___ Mich App ___; ___ NW2d ___ (Docket No. 290522, issued May 13, 2010), slip op, p 9. First, it is well established that those who have ownership interests in property that benefit from restrictive covenants have standing to enforce such restrictions. Terrien v Zwit, 467 Mich 56, 71-72; 648 NW2d 602 (2002); Indian Village Ass'n v Barton, 312 Mich 541, 549; 20 NW2d 304 (1945). Here, defendant homeowner association is a landowner in the subdivision. As a result of the 1994 Michigan National Bank ("MNB") transaction, HWSHA became the owner of the vast majority of lots 45 and 48, so long as the properties are used for green space or a park. Thus, HWSHA, as a landowner, has the ability to enforce any restrictive covenants within the subdivision. Second, even if HWSHA was not a landowner, HWSHA would still be able to enforce the restrictions. Homeowner associations that actively represent the interests of landowners are allowed to enforce deed restrictions. Civic Ass'n of Hammond Lake v Hammond Lake Estates No. 3 Lots 126-135, 271 Mich App 130, 135-136; 721 NW2d 801 (2006). This Court has stated that a "voluntary association whose `sole purpose is to represent the interest of its members,' . . . may bring suit to effectuate that purpose, regardless of whether the association itself owns any land." Id. at 135, quoting White Lake Improvement Ass'n v Whitehall, 22 Mich App 262, 272274; 177 NW2d 473 (1970). Here, HWSHA was active in representing the interests of the subdivision landowners. In fact, the purpose listed in HWSHA's articles of incorporation is "[t]o -2-

protect and exercise the rights provided in the building and use restrictions of Helman Woods Subdivision." And since 1992, HWSHA has been active, as evidenced by their various meeting minutes. Plaintiff's characterization of HWSHA as never attempting to enforce any restrictions in the last 50 years is patently false. For example, in 1975, when the association was initially formed, it opposed the rezoning of certain lots within the subdivision from residential to commercial. Though HWSHA was unsuccessful in preventing the zoning change, its efforts are not to be ignored. Plaintiff also argues that HWSHA never objected to or defended against the 1987 lawsuit. While true, it has little bearing since HWSHA was not in existence at that time as it was automatically dissolved in 1979, only to be revived later in 1992. Plaintiff also argues that HWSHA lacks standing because HWSHA's articles of incorporation only refer to "Helman Woods Subdivision" with no reference to "Helman Woods Subdivision No. 1." This distinction, however, has no bearing on the "Helman Woods Subdivision" lots from enforcing existing deed restrictions that were created for their benefit, even if the deed restriction violations take place outside the "Helman Woods Subdivision." See Terrien, 467 Mich at 71 (stating that property owners have a right to enforce covenants "affecting their own property"). Here, the restrictions at issue in this case were meant to benefit the Helman Woods lots; thus, those lot owners, acting through the HWSHA, would be able to enforce any restrictions that were binding on Helman Woods Subdivision No. 1. Because HWSHA is a landowner within the subdivision and is a voluntary association that actively represents the interests of its landowners, it has standing to enforce any restrictive covenants that were created for the benefit of those landowners. Thus, the trial court did not err when it decided that HWSHA had standing to enforce the covenants. C. EXPRESS RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS Plaintiff argues that the restrictive covenants do not apply to its lots 79 through 84, which were formerly known as Outlot A. We disagree. A trial court's decision on a motion for summary disposition brought under MCR 2.116(C)(10) is reviewed de novo. Dressel v Ameribank, 468 Mich 557, 561; 664 NW2d 151 (2003). When deciding a motion for summary disposition under this rule, a court must consider the pleadings, affidavits, depositions, admissions, and other documentary evidence filed in the action or submitted by the parties in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. MCR 2.116(G)(5); Wilson v Alpena Co Rd Comm, 474 Mich 161, 166; 713 NW2d 717 (2006). The motion is properly granted if the evidence fails to establish a genuine issue regarding any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Michalski v BarLevav, 463 Mich 723, 730; 625 NW2d 754 (2001). Additionally, the scope of a deed restriction is a question of law that is reviewed de novo. Bloomfield Estates Improvement Ass'n, Inc v Birmingham, 479 Mich 206, 212; 737 NW2d 670 (2007). There is no dispute that on April 1, 1952, Grandville recorded the following use restrictions: No building shall be erected, altered, or used on any lot whatsoever in said subdivision (except as may be herein stated) for any purpose whatsoever, other

-3-

than (1) one single detached dwelling occupied by the purchaser . . . for residence purposes only. At the time, the Helman Woods Subdivision consisted of lots 1 through 78 and Outlot A. Plaintiff maintains that, because the restriction uses the word "lot" and does not refer to any "outlot," Outlot A is not covered by this restriction. This argument is unavailing. This Court summarized the general rules for construing restrictive covenants: When interpreting a restrictive covenant, courts must give effect to the instrument as a whole where the intent of the parties is clearly ascertainable. . . . Where the intent is clear from the whole document, there is no ambiguous restriction to interpret and the rules pertaining to the resolution of doubts in favor of the free use of property are therefore not applicable. . . . In placing the proper construction on restrictions, if there can be said to be any doubt about their exact meaning, the courts must have in mind the subdivider's intention and purpose. . . . The restrictions must be construed in light of the general plan under which the restrictive district was platted and developed. . . . In attempting to give effect to restrictive covenants, courts are not so much concerned with the grammatical rules or the strict letter of the words used as with arriving at the intention of the restrictor, if that can be gathered from the entire language of the instrument. . . . Moreover, the language employed in stating the restriction is to be taken in its ordinary and generally understood or popular sense, and is not to be subjected to technical refinement, nor the words torn from their association and their separate meanings sought in a lexicon. . . . Covenants are to be construed with reference to the present and prospective use of property as well as to the specific language employed and upon the reading as a whole rather than from isolated words. . . . [Brown v Martin, ___ Mich App ___; ___ NW2d ___ (Docket No. 289030, issued June 15, 2010), slip op, p 3., quoting Borowski v Welch, 117 Mich App 712, 716717; 324 NW2d 144 (1982)] Plaintiff's argument, that an outlot is not a lot, is precisely the type of linguistic gymnastics that this Court warned against performing when construing restrictive covenants. The subdivider's intent is readily apparent from reviewing the words that the subdivider used: "any lot whatsoever in said subdivision." In ordinary and generally understood language, an outlot is a type of lot. Moreover, the phrase "any lot whatsoever" leaves no doubt with regard to the drafter's intent

Download FRANKLIN COMMONS LLC V HELMAN WOODS SUBDIVISION HOMEOWNERS ASSOC.pdf

Michigan Law