Michigan Supreme Court: a co-owner injured in the common elements is an invitee
Michigan Supreme Court: a co-owner injured in the common elements is an invitee
2026-09-12 · Michigan · Courts
What happened. The Michigan Supreme Court held on 11 July 2024 that a co-owner using a condominium's common elements is an invitee of the association, and that the association owes the ordinary common-law duty of reasonable care. Janini v London Townhouses Condominium Association, No. 164158, reported at 514 Mich 84.1
The decision was 5–2. Justice Bernstein wrote for the majority, joined by Justices Clement, Cavanagh, Welch and Bolden; Justice Zahra dissented, joined by Justice Viviano.
What it replaced
For nine years Michigan associations had the benefit of Francescutti v Fox Chase Condominium Association, 312 Mich App 640 (2015), which held that a co-owner is neither a licensee nor an invitee of the association — and therefore, in premises-liability terms, is owed no duty at all. The reasoning was that a co-owner holds an undivided interest in the common elements and cannot be an entrant on land they partly own.
Janini overrules it. The Court held the correct inquiry is who has possession and control, not who holds title. Where the master deed and bylaws make the association responsible for maintaining the common elements, and the co-owners lack possession and control over them, the association occupies the premises in the relevant sense and the co-owner enters as an invitee.
The facts
On 16 March 2019, Mr Janini slipped on ice on a common-area sidewalk while taking out his rubbish and suffered a brain injury. Under Francescutti that case ended at summary disposition. Under Janini it proceeds on the merits.
What changed operationally, and it is not subtle
Between 2015 and 2024 a Michigan condominium association had a categorical defence to co-owner slip-and-fall claims. It no longer does. The defences that remain are the ordinary ones — notice, open and obvious as it now functions after Kandil-Elsayed v F & E Oil, comparative fault, causation — and they are all fact-bound, which means they are litigated rather than won on the papers.
Three consequences a board is already carrying:
- General liability limits and umbrella coverage. An association whose limits were set when co-owner claims were categorically barred is under-covered against the same claims now. This is the single most common gap.
- Contractor oversight, not just contractor selection. The duty is the association's. Hiring a snow contractor discharges the work, not the duty.
- Documentation of inspection. Reasonable care is proved with records. Associations that keep none are relying on a board member's recollection of a February morning two years earlier.
The case decided six months too early
The clearest illustration of what Janini changed is a case that came out just before it. In Estate of Drotar v Hickory Woods Condominium Association, No. 363963 (25 January 2024, unpublished), a woman drowned after prying the cover off a common-area standpipe to rescue trapped ducklings and falling in headfirst. The Court of Appeals said it could “find no principled basis to distinguish Francescutti” and had “no latitude to circumnavigate that binding precedent” under MCR 7.215(C)(2).2
Summary disposition for the association was affirmed. Six months later the precedent that compelled that result was gone.
How the Court of Appeals has applied it since
In Fowlkes v The Abbeys of Westland Condominium Association, No. 366609 (13 May 2025, unpublished), the panel reinstated a co-owner's premises-liability and breach-of-contract claims against the association that had been dismissed pre-Janini. It also reversed the dismissal of the snow contractor, holding that the contractor's duty “arose not from possession or control of the premises, but from its performance of contractual obligations in a manner that allegedly created a foreseeable risk of harm to others.”3
That is the pairing boards now face: after Janini the association is exposed, and after Fowlkes the vendor is exposed alongside it rather than instead of it. Indemnity language in the snow contract is now doing real work.
What to watch next
Janini's reasoning has already reached beyond co-owners. In July 2026 the Court of Appeals extended invitee status to a short-term rental guest on the same logic. The open question is where the line sits for a social guest, a delivery driver, or a contractor's employee — none of which Michigan has squarely decided since the rule changed.
Related Michigan HOA Topics
- Janini v London Townhouses Condominium Ass'n, Mich Sup Ct No. 164158 (11 July 2024) — opinion ↩
- Estate of Drotar v Hickory Woods Condominium Ass'n, Mich Ct App No. 363963 (25 Jan 2024, unpublished) ↩
- Fowlkes v The Abbeys of Westland Condominium Ass'n, Mich Ct App No. 366609 (13 May 2025, unpublished) ↩
Stay on top of Michigan HOA law
Every week: new Michigan legislation, court rulings, and regulatory developments affecting condos, planned communities, and property managers. Free.
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.