There is no regulator, and LARA says so in writing

The Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs publishes a Condominium Act FAQ that states the position in terms: “LARA has no authority to take complaints or enforce any requirements of the Condominium Act regarding the actions of condominium associations.”¹

LARA's role is limited to producing the Condominium Buyer's Handbook required by section 84a, distributing the Act and its administrative rules on request, and maintaining the condominium website. It does not investigate, and it cannot order production of a document.

The Attorney General has issued no formal opinion touching associations since 2019. Its Consumer Protection Team folds condominium associations into a “Landlord/Tenant” complaint category alongside mobile home parks — that category ranked sixth of the top ten in 2025, out of more than 12,000 written complaints — but a complaint is not an enforcement mechanism.

The one statutory financial-oversight hook, and its opt-out

Section 57 of the Condominium Act, MCL 559.257(2)–(3), added in 2013, requires an association with annual revenues over $20,000 to have its books independently audited or reviewed by a certified public accountant each year.

Note both softenings. It is “audited or reviewed” — a review is a materially lighter engagement. And the co-owners may opt out annually by affirmative vote, which many associations do as a routine agenda item.

So Michigan's only mandatory financial-transparency requirement for condominium associations is waivable by the same body that would benefit from it.

What an owner can actually do

1. Make the request in writing, and state the purpose. Bafna's marginal-connection test is easy to meet, but only if the request says what the connection is.
2. Cite both statutes. Most Michigan condominium associations are also nonprofit corporations, and MCL 450.2487 runs in parallel.
3. Ask for the section 57 audit or review, and ask whether the co-owners voted to opt out. Both are answerable in one sentence and both are revealing.
4. Expect to sue. There is no intermediate step. Michigan's enforcement path for a records refusal is circuit court, or arbitration where the documents require it.

What matters for a board

That the absence of a regulator is not the same as an absence of exposure. A refusal to produce documents is frequently the fact that turns an ordinary dispute into litigation with an unsympathetic factual backdrop — and Michigan trial courts have shown they will look hard at an association's records once they are in front of them. In one 2025 case a judge found an association's ledgers “not trustworthy” and its practices “deceptive,” and its foreclosure failed.

What to watch next

Nothing in Lansing. No bill in the 2025–2026 session addresses records inspection, document access, or document-fee caps. The only document-access provision in any Michigan bill this session is inside House Bill 5784, which would make a reserve study and its funding plan available to a unit owner, a prospective purchaser or a mortgagee — and that bill has never had a hearing.