2026-09-12 · Michigan · Courts

What happened. The Michigan Court of Appeals reversed and remanded on 18 December 2025, holding that a trial court erred in dismissing an owner's covenant-enforcement claim on estoppel and waiver grounds without addressing the declaration provision that gave the owner an independent right to sue. Nielson v Savino, No. 372542, Oakland Circuit Court — unpublished per curiam, panel of Riordan, P.J., Garrett and Mariani.¹

The provision

Section 11.03 of the Park Woods subdivision declaration gave the right of enforcement to “Developer, the Association and any Owner.” That is common drafting in Michigan subdivisions and it means what it says: three separate enforcement rights, held independently.

The board's approval of the Savinos' fence disposed of the association's objection. It did not dispose of Nielson's.

The facts, which complicate it

The Savinos obtained board approval in October 2017. They then altered the plan after a conversation with a board member, and built to the altered plan — so what was built was not what was approved. Nielson sued six and a half years later.

The Court of Appeals did not hold that Nielson wins. It held the trial court had to engage with section 11.03 before deciding he loses.

1. Nielson v Savino, Mich Ct App No. 372542 (18 Dec 2025, unpublished) ↩
2. Powers v Bone, Mich Ct App No. 367748 (11 Feb 2025, unpublished) — laches grant vacated ↩