Michigan HOA Estoppel & Resale

Section 1: Overview — Estoppel and resale disclosure in Michigan

Michigan requires a condominium association, on the sale of a unit, to furnish a written statement of unpaid assessments against the selling owner, and the same body of law governs site condominiums. The requirement sits in the Michigan Condominium Act, Act 59 of 1978, at MCL 559.211(2), which entitles a purchaser or grantee to a written statement from the association of co-owners setting out unpaid assessments, interest, late charges, fines, costs, and attorney fees charged against the seller.¹ This is a non-uniform statutory provision. It isn't a Florida-style estoppel certificate and not a resale certificate under the Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act, and the Condominium Act doesn't use either label; practitioners, title companies, and closing agents in Michigan commonly call the document a status letter, dues letter, or payoff statement.¹

The provision reaches condominiums, and because Michigan organizes many single-family planned developments as site condominiums governed by the Condominium Act, it reaches those developments as well.³ A genuine non-condominium homeowners association has no statutory written statement; disclosure for it comes from the recorded declaration by practice.¹ At a glance, the mechanics run narrow: the buyer (usually through the title company) requests a statement of what the seller owes, and the figure stated caps the buyer's exposure. The statute sets no issuance deadline, no fee, and no validity period.¹

Michigan therefore sits between the national camps. It's a non-uniform statutory-disclosure state, distinct from UCIOA states such as Alaska, from hard-mandate Florida, and from pure declaration-only states. The sections ahead set out the statutory duty, its contents, its binding effect, the transaction workflow, and recent activity.

Section 2: The statutory requirements

2A. The Michigan Condominium Act written statement of unpaid assessments

The operative provision is MCL 559.211(2) of the Michigan Condominium Act, MCL 559.101 et seq., a non-uniform statutory provision within Act 59 of 1978.^1,2 It applies to an owner-to-owner resale of a condominium unit. On the sale or conveyance of a unit, the statute entitles the purchaser or grantee to a written statement from the association of co-owners setting forth the amount of unpaid assessments, interest, late charges, fines, costs, and attorney fees against the seller or grantor.¹ The association is the party that produces the statement; in practice the request is routed through the title company or closing agent, and the selling owner's separate duty is to deliver the governing documents the buyer needs to evaluate the purchase.¹

The statute doesn't impose an issuance deadline on the association. It contains no turnaround clock, and no business-versus-calendar day count applies to production of the statement.¹ The only time element is a duty on the requesting party: unless the purchaser or grantee requests the written statement at least 5 days before the sale, the purchaser is liable for any unpaid assessments against the unit, together with interest, costs, fines, late charges, and attorney fees incurred in collection.¹ The statute expresses this simply as "5 days" and doesn't specify a business-day count.¹

The provision authorizes no fee and sets no ceiling. There's no Florida-style indexed cap and no statutory rush charge; the text stays silent on cost.¹ The written statement stays separate from the developer public offering package. Initial sales by a declarant are governed by MCL 559.184a, which requires the developer to furnish a recorded master deed, a conforming purchase agreement and escrow agreement, a condominium buyer's handbook, and a disclosure statement.⁴ That developer regime, paired with the 9-business-day withdrawal right under MCL 559.184, applies to new-construction first sales and doesn't govern owner resales.⁵ This statutory resale regime is condominium-only. A planned community that isn't a condominium has no Condominium Act written statement, and its disclosure obligations, if any, are whatever the recorded declaration provides.¹

2B. Required contents and the seller's resale disclosure

The statutory content of the MCL 559.211(2) statement is confined to the association's financial claim against the departing owner: the amount of unpaid assessments, interest, late charges, fines, costs, and attorney fees charged against the seller or grantor.¹ The Michigan provision doesn't enumerate the longer content list found in the uniform-act resale certificate, and that list shouldn't be imported. The Michigan statement is a payoff figure, not a multi-item disclosure form.¹

The written statement is only part of the package a buyer needs. The broader resale disclosure comes from the condominium documents the selling owner should provide or that the buyer can obtain from the register of deeds: the recorded master deed, the bylaws, and any rules.⁴ The association must keep current copies of the master deed, amendments, and other condominium documents available for review by co-owners and prospective purchasers.²

The disclosed assessment balance is the financial heart of the transaction. It's the mechanism by which the buyer and the closing agent learn the exact payoff figure that must be cleared at closing, and it fixes the ceiling on what the association can later collect from the buyer for the seller's arrearage.¹ For a genuine non-condominium planned community, the equivalent figure comes from a declaration-based statement of account or dues letter rather than a statutory statement, and its accuracy and binding effect depend on the declaration and common-law principles rather than MCL 559.211.¹

2C. Binding effect, remedies, and scope

The binding effect is the core protection. Under MCL 559.211(2), once the association issues the written statement, the purchaser or grantee isn't liable for, and the unit isn't subject to a lien for, unpaid assessments, interest, late charges, fines, costs, and attorney fees against the seller in excess of the amount set forth in the statement.¹ That's the estoppel function: the figure the association certifies caps the buyer's exposure for the seller's debt. The Michigan Court of Appeals has read the provision narrowly, holding that it reaches only past or current charges assessed against the seller and doesn't require the association to disclose future assessments not yet due at the time of sale.⁶

The remedy for nondelivery isn't a contract-cancellation right. The Michigan resale provision contains no voidable-contract mechanism; the buyer's protection runs through the request itself. If the purchaser doesn't request the statement at least 5 days before the sale, the buyer becomes liable for all unpaid assessments and related collection charges against the unit.¹ The contract-withdrawal right in the Act belongs to the separate developer regime, where a new-unit buyer may withdraw within 9 business days after receiving the developer documents, not to owner resales.⁵

As to scope, the provision reaches condominiums under the Michigan Condominium Act, including site condominiums, a form the Act governs even though the term "site condominium" isn't defined in the statute.³ A genuine non-condominium homeowners association falls outside MCL 559.211 and depends on its recorded declaration. The statute draws no small-condominium exception to the written-statement duty.¹

Section 3: The resale transaction in practice

A. Requesting the certificate

The statute gives the entitlement to the purchaser or grantee, and in practice the title company or closing attorney submits the request for the buyer.¹ This applies to condominiums, including site condominiums; a non-condominium HOA isn't covered and the declaration governs.^1,3 The request is what triggers the buyer's protection; the statute contemplates a written statement in response to a request tied to the pending sale.¹

B. The statutory clock and delivery

There's no statutory clock on the association's response and no business-versus-calendar day count for production.¹ The only timing rule runs against the buyer: the request must be made at least 5 days before the sale to secure the liability cap.¹ The statement goes to the requesting purchaser or the buyer's closing agent, and this applies to condominiums, including site condominiums.¹ Because no deadline binds the association, a late response has no statutory penalty; the practical consequence falls on a buyer who fails to make a timely request, who then takes the unit subject to the seller's unpaid charges.¹

C. Fees and refunds

The association may not point to MCL 559.211 for a fee, because the provision neither authorizes a charge nor caps one; the statute stays silent on cost.¹ This is unlike Florida, which caps the condominium and HOA estoppel-certificate fee at a base amount adjusted by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation for the Consumer Price Index to $299, with a $119 expedited add-on and a $179 delinquency add-on under Fla. Stat. 718.116(8)(f).^7,8 The Michigan statute likewise says nothing about an expedited or rush fee or a refund if the sale doesn't close, so no statutory figure applies to either.¹ This applies to condominiums, including site condominiums; a non-condominium HOA's charges, if any, are a matter of the declaration.¹

D. Consequences and the binding effect

Once the statement issues, the association can't collect from the purchaser amounts above those disclosed, and the unit isn't subject to a lien for the excess.¹ This applies to condominiums, including site condominiums.¹ The statute contains no separate liability standard or penalty for an erroneous or late statement beyond the cap on excess collection; a person adversely affected by a violation of the Act may bring an action for relief under MCL 559.215.⁹ The purchaser has no contract-cancellation remedy for nondelivery under the resale provision; the operative consequence is that a buyer who fails to request the statement at least 5 days before sale is liable for all unpaid amounts against the unit.¹

Section 4: Recent legislative and judicial activity

A. Recent bills

No bill enacted or introduced in the Michigan Legislature in the past 24 months amends MCL 559.211 or otherwise changes the condominium resale written-statement and status-of-assessments duty.¹ Recent condominium legislation has centered on reserve-fund planning rather than resale disclosure.

B. Recent Michigan appellate rulings

No published or unpublished decision of the Michigan Court of Appeals or the Michigan Supreme Court in the past 36 months interprets MCL 559.211 or a declaration-based resale disclosure duty for a Michigan common interest community.¹ The controlling appellate interpretation remains Holcomb v. Harbour Pointe Condominium Association, an unpublished per curiam Court of Appeals decision that predates the review window.

C. Active legislative debates

Michigan's active condominium debate concerns mandatory reserve studies rather than resale disclosure, and no current proposal would add a statutory fee cap or a fixed turnaround for the resale written statement or align the Act with later uniform-act resale mechanics.¹⁰

Section 5: National positioning and related coverage

Michigan sits between the national resale-disclosure camps. Hard-mandate states such as Florida attach a statutory estoppel certificate with a 10-business-day issuance clock and a CPI-indexed fee cap (adjusted to $299 for a certificate, $119 expedited, and $179 for a delinquent account) for condominiums under Fla. Stat. 718.116(8) and for HOAs under 720.30851, with the fee forfeited if the association misses the deadline.^7,8 Detailed-disclosure states such as California require a statutory resale package of enumerated documents and disclosure summaries under the Davis-Stirling Act, Civil Code 4525, which the association must deliver within 10 days of a written request under Civil Code 4530(a)(1).^11,12 UCIOA resale-certificate states such as Alaska, Colorado, and Washington require a resale certificate on a short clock; Alaska, for example, requires the association to furnish the certificate within 10 days of a written request and a reasonable fee, caps the purchaser's liability at the amount stated, and makes the purchase contract voidable until the certificate is provided and for five days after under AS 34.08.590.¹³ Pure declaration-only jurisdictions have no statutory mechanism at all. Michigan's Condominium Act carries a genuine statutory resale-disclosure duty, but a narrow one: a written statement of the seller's unpaid balance, with a binding cap on the buyer's exposure, no issuance deadline, and no fee. A multi-state operator expanding into Michigan should verify that its process captures the buyer's obligation to request the statement at least 5 days before closing rather than assuming a uniform-act certificate with a fixed clock, a fee cap, and a voidable-contract remedy.¹ Michigan hasn't recently amended the resale-disclosure provision, which has stood in its current form since the 2000 amendment took effect in 2001.¹

HOA Weekly's Michigan Estoppel and Resale coverage updates quarterly as the legislature, the Michigan Court of Appeals, and the Michigan Supreme Court act. Federal frameworks also apply to Michigan associations regardless of the state rule, notably the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act where a disclosed balance is being collected, along with the Fair Housing Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, and the FCC's OTARD rule.

Footnotes

1. MCL 559.211, Michigan Compiled Laws, Michigan Legislature ↩
2. Condominium Act, Act 59 of 1978, MCL 559.101 et seq., Michigan Legislature ↩
3. Condominium Buyer's Handbook (site condominiums), Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs ↩
4. MCL 559.184a (developer disclosure documents), Michigan Legislature ↩
5. MCL 559.184 (developer purchase agreement and 9-business-day withdrawal right), Michigan Legislature ↩
6. Holcomb v. Harbour Pointe Condominium Association, Mich Ct App No. 266023 (Apr. 6, 2006), unpublished ↩
7. Fla. Stat. 718.116 (condominium estoppel certificate), The Florida Senate ↩
8. CS/HB 979 (2024) staff analysis, estoppel-certificate fees and CPI adjustment, The Florida Senate ↩
9. MCL 559.215 (action for relief), Michigan Legislature ↩
10. House Bill 5784 of 2026 (reserve study, amends MCL 559.205), Michigan Legislature ↩
11. Cal. Civ. Code 4525 (disclosure documents to prospective purchaser), Davis-Stirling Act ↩
12. Cal. Civ. Code 4530(a)(1) (10-day delivery of Section 4525 documents), Davis-Stirling Act ↩
13. Alaska Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act, AS 34.08 (including AS 34.08.590, resale certificate), Alaska State Court Law Library ↩