Michigan HOA Fining Authority

Section 1: Overview — Fining authority in Michigan

Michigan complicates the usual condo-versus-HOA divide, because so many detached-home communities that look like ordinary subdivisions are, legally, condominiums. Start there. Before you can answer any fining question, you need to pin down the community's legal structure. If the community qualifies as a condominium — including a site condominium, where the home and yard together form the "unit" and there's no shared roof — the Michigan Condominium Act, MCL 559.101 et seq. (Public Act 59 of 1978), supplies the fining authority, working through the recorded condominium bylaws the Act contemplates.¹ If the community is a true non-condominium association, Michigan has no comprehensive statute to fall back on: fining authority comes entirely from the recorded declaration of covenants, and the Michigan Nonprofit Corporation Act, MCL 450.2101 et seq., only handles corporate formalities — it grants no fining power.² For condominiums, the Act authorizes fines "after notice and hearing thereon" as the bylaws provide, treats fines as a "reasonable" remedy, and secures unpaid sums through the assessment lien at MCL 559.208.³ That raises the question this page answers in the table and in Section 3C: can an unpaid fine become a lien and support foreclosure? Yes, but only where the condominium documents treat fines as assessments — and a balance made up solely of fines generally can't be foreclosed.⁴ Michigan hasn't adopted UCIOA, so none of that act's fining or lien features apply here.⁵ The Quick-Reference table below lays out these mechanics.

Section 2: Quick-Reference Fining Mechanics Table

Here's Michigan's fining picture at a glance. The Condominiums column reflects the Michigan Condominium Act (MCL 559.101 et seq.) and reaches site condominiums along with traditional ones. The Planned Communities column reflects the CC&R-derived framework governing true non-condominium associations. Because so many detached-home communities in Michigan turn out to be site condominiums rather than platted-subdivision HOAs, the Condominiums column actually governs more communities than its label suggests — which is exactly why nailing down the legal structure comes first. Every value below is sourced in the detailed discussion in Section 3.

Condominiums column reflects the Michigan Condominium Act (MCL 559.101 et seq.) and reaches site condominiums — which cover many of Michigan's detached-home communities. Planned Communities column reflects true non-condominium associations, which remain CC&R-derived. Last verified: July 14, 2026.

Section 3: Fining mechanics in detail

3A. Source and outer limits of fining authority

For condominiums, fining authority is statutory, but it only operates through the recorded condominium bylaws. MCL 559.206(c) gives the association, when a co-owner defaults, "[s]uch other reasonable remedies the condominium documents may provide including but without limitation the levying of fines against co-owners after notice and hearing thereon and the imposition of late charges for nonpayment of assessments as provided in the condominium bylaws or rules and regulations of the condominium."³ So the Act creates the power to fine, but a board can only use it if the bylaws actually spell out a fining provision. Not every set of bylaws does, and a board has no authority to impose a fine the governing documents don't authorize.⁶ MCL 559.165 supplies the underlying compliance mandate: every unit co-owner, tenant, and nonco-owner occupant must comply with the master deed, the bylaws, the rules and regulations of the condominium project, and the Act itself.⁷

That threshold classification question drives the whole analysis. The Act never defines "site condominium," but the term describes a condominium project of single-family detached homes, where each unit typically includes the house and the land around it.⁸ A "condominium project," under the Act, means any plan or project of at least two condominium units established in conformance with the statute (MCL 559.104).⁹ So a detached-home community created as a condominium project falls under the Act even though it looks like an ordinary subdivision — which is why the fining analysis has to start by confirming whether the master deed actually created a condominium.

True planned communities — non-condominium associations organized under recorded covenants — have no statutory fining authority to lean on. Michigan has never passed a comprehensive planned-community statute, so fining power exists only where the declaration creates it. The Nonprofit Corporation Act governs corporate mechanics like meetings, voting, records, and director duties, but it grants no power to fine.²

Michigan never adopted UCIOA, so associations can't borrow UCIOA's fining ceilings, notice templates, or lien features.⁵ The standard that actually governs fine amounts is reasonableness: MCL 559.206(c) frames fines as one of the "reasonable remedies" the documents may provide, and the Act sets neither a dollar cap nor a statutory fine schedule. The bylaws set fine amounts for condominiums, the declaration sets them for planned communities, and a court can review either for reasonableness.

3B. The required fining procedure

For condominiums, the fining procedure carries a statutory predicate that many other states skip. MCL 559.206(c) permits fines only "after notice and hearing thereon."³ That makes notice of the alleged violation and a chance to be heard prerequisites to a valid fine, not optional courtesies. The Act doesn't fix a day-count for that notice or a deadline for scheduling or requesting the hearing — those specifics come from the condominium bylaws.⁶ Where the bylaws set a cure period or a fixed advance-notice window before a hearing, that requirement binds the board, and a fine imposed without following the documents' own procedure is procedurally defective. There's no de minimis exception here — the statutory notice-and-hearing predicate applies to every fine, regardless of amount.

The Michigan Court of Appeals backed up the contractual force of these procedures in a recent decision. In Springfield v. Deer Run Estates Condominium Ass'n, the court held that condominium bylaws form a binding contract, and that a board that skips the bylaws' notice-and-hearing procedure before imposing an enforcement penalty breaches that contract.¹⁰ The penalty at issue wasn't monetary, but the reasoning applies directly to fines: a board can't treat the opportunity to appear and defend as beside the point.

For true planned communities, the procedure comes entirely from the declaration, backed by the common-law expectation of reasonable notice and a genuine chance to respond. No statutory notice period or hearing deadline applies unless the declaration sets one.

Whether per-day or continuing fines are allowed turns entirely on the governing documents. The Act neither authorizes nor prohibits continuing fines, so a condominium can levy them only if the bylaws provide for it, and a planned community only if the declaration does. That brings us back to the threshold point: confirm the community is a condominium — including a site condominium — before applying the Act's notice-and-hearing predicate, because a true planned community's procedure is contractual, full stop.

3C. Enforcement of unpaid fines: assessments, liens, and foreclosure

For condominiums, MCL 559.208(1) creates the assessment lien and lists exactly what it secures: unpaid sums assessed to a co-owner, plus interest, collection and late charges, advances made for taxes or other liens protecting the lien, attorney fees, "and fines in accordance with the condominium documents."¹¹ Fines fall within the lien, then — but only to the extent the condominium documents bring them in. That qualifier decides everything. In Channel View East Condominium Ass'n, Inc. v. Ferguson, the Court of Appeals held that an association couldn't foreclose a statutory lien made up solely of unpaid fines where the bylaws never treated fines as assessments. The court reasoned that "MCL 559.208(1) does not provide that fines and the other added categories become liens unto themselves, separate and distinct from assessment liens," and that the fines at issue "may not be treated as assessments and therefore plaintiff did not have authority under its bylaws to file a lien."⁴ So a fine-only balance generally can't be foreclosed. A balance of unpaid assessments — which may also carry properly documented fines — can.

Where foreclosure is on the table, MCL 559.208 offers two routes: foreclosure by action (judicial) or foreclosure by advertisement, each proceeding "in the same manner as a foreclosure under the laws relating to foreclosure of real estate mortgages by advertisement or judicial action."¹¹ Before pursuing either one, the association has to record a notice of lien and serve it on the delinquent co-owner by first-class mail at least 10 days before starting foreclosure (MCL 559.208(3)).¹¹ The Act sets no minimum dollar amount and no minimum delinquency period as statutory preconditions — those, along with any board-vote or pre-suit steps, come from the documents. After a sale, the redemption period runs six months in the ordinary residential case, shortened to one month if the property sits abandoned, under the general foreclosure-by-advertisement redemption statute, MCL 600.3240.¹²

True planned communities get no statutory lien at all. Lien and foreclosure rights exist only if the recorded declaration creates them, and their scope is whatever the declaration says.² An association shouldn't assert a lien for fines — or for anything else — without a declaration provision that creates it.

Suspending voting rights, or common-element and amenity use, is available to a condominium association only if the condominium documents provide for it — the Act treats these as document-derived remedies rather than handing them out directly.¹³ For planned communities, any such suspension likewise depends entirely on the declaration.

Section 4: Recent legislative and judicial activity

A. Recent bills

One law enacted within the past 24 months touches condominium and HOA fining authority — indirectly, by narrowing what a community can fine for in the first place.

No bill introduced in the 2023-2024 or 2025-2026 sessions touches the core fining, due-process, lien, or foreclosure provisions at MCL 559.206 or MCL 559.208. The pending condominium reserve-study legislation — House Bill 5784 of 2026, amending MCL 559.205 — addresses reserve funding, not fining.¹⁷

B. Recent appellate rulings

No Michigan appellate opinion in the past 36 months squarely decides the enforceability or reasonableness of a monetary condominium fine. The controlling fines-foreclosure decision, Channel View East Condominium Ass'n v. Ferguson (Court of Appeals, Docket No. 351888, Feb. 25, 2021, unpublished), predates that window and gets its full treatment in Section 3C.⁴ Two decisions from within the window still bear on the procedure and collection mechanics that surround fining.

C. Active legislative debates

The most active condominium-related proposal right now is the reserve-study legislation, House Bill 5784 of 2026, which would require periodic reserve studies for larger associations but leaves fining authority untouched.¹⁷ No pending bill would amend the fining, due-process, lien, or foreclosure provisions of the Condominium Act.

Section 5: National positioning and related coverage

Step back, and Michigan reads as a condominium-statute state with one distinctive wrinkle: its widespread use of site condominiums, which pull many detached-home communities under the Michigan Condominium Act instead of leaving them as non-statutory HOAs. It has no comprehensive statute for true non-condominium associations, which sets it apart from full UCIOA states like Alaska, Colorado, and Minnesota (and, under the 2008 version, Connecticut), and from comprehensive two-statute states like Florida and Arizona that regulate both condominiums and planned communities in detail.⁵ The site-condominium question defines Michigan's approach, because it decides whether the Condominium Act applies at all — a detached-home community's fining, lien, and foreclosure rights turn entirely on whether it was created as a condominium or as a covenant-based association. On the lien-and-foreclosure treatment of fines, Michigan runs more restrictive than super-priority states: fines are secured by the assessment lien only where the condominium documents say so, and a fine-only balance generally can't support foreclosure.⁴

HOA Weekly updates this coverage quarterly as the Legislature and the Michigan appellate courts act. Federal frameworks apply here too, regardless of the state structure — notably the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, which can reach third-party collection of fines, along with the Fair Housing Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, and the FCC's OTARD rule governing satellite dishes and antennas.

1. Michigan Condominium Act, Act 59 of 1978, MCL 559.101 et seq. (Michigan Legislature) ↩
2. Michigan Nonprofit Corporation Act, Act 162 of 1982, MCL 450.2101 et seq. (Michigan Legislature) ↩
3. MCL 559.206, Default by co-owner; relief (Michigan Legislature) ↩
4. Channel View East Condominium Ass'n, Inc. v Ferguson, Mich Ct App Docket No. 351888 (Feb. 25, 2021) (unpublished); holding quoted and analyzed (Makower Abbate Guerra Wegner Vollmer PLLC) ↩
5. Community Associations Institute, states that have adopted the Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act (Alaska, Colorado, Minnesota, Nevada, West Virginia (1982); Connecticut, Delaware, Vermont, Washington (2008)) ↩
6. Fines, Hearings & Due Process in Michigan Condominiums (Szura & Delonis, PLC), discussing MCL 559.206 and bylaw-set notice periods ↩
7. MCL 559.165, Compliance with master deed, bylaws, rules, and regulations (Michigan Legislature) ↩
8. Senate Fiscal Agency analysis (2025-2026): "'Site condominium' is not defined in the Condominium Act. The term is used to describe condominium development with single-family detached housing." ↩
9. MCL 559.104(1), definition of "condominium project" (Michigan Legislature, Act 59 of 1978 full text) ↩
10. Springfield v Deer Run Estates Condominium Ass'n, Mich Ct App Docket No. 368044 (July 17, 2025) (unpublished per curiam) (Michigan Courts) ↩
11. MCL 559.208, Assessment lien; priority; foreclosure; bid; actions; receiver (Michigan Legislature) ↩
12. MCL 600.3240, redemption periods for foreclosure by advertisement (Michigan Legislature) ↩
13. State of Michigan FAQ (Community Associations Institute / CCAL): under MCL 559.206, an association may assess fines and suspend common-element use or voting rights "if provided for in the Documents" ↩
14. Homeowners' Energy Policy Act, 2024 PA 68, MCL 559.301 et seq., Eff. Apr. 2, 2025 (Michigan Legislature) ↩
15. MCL 559.309, adoption of written solar energy policy statement within one year (Michigan Legislature, Act 68 of 2024 full text) ↩
16. Tilchin & Hall PC: HEPA does not define "homeowners' association" and its application to Condominium Act associations is "doubtful" ↩
17. House Bill 5784 of 2026, amending MCL 559.205 (reserve study and funding plan) (Michigan Legislature) ↩
18. Farmington Square Condominium Ass'n v Mitan, Mich Ct App Docket No. 366035 (Aug. 11, 2025) (unpublished per curiam); analysis (The Michigan Community Association Law Blog / Hirzel Law, PLC) ↩