2026-09-12 · Michigan · Compliance

What happened. Nothing — and for a question this contested, nothing is the story. A search of Michigan appellate output from January 2024 through today produces no decision construing MCL 559.157, the Condominium Act's records-inspection provision, or MCL 450.2487, the Nonprofit Corporation Act's parallel member-records right, in a community-association context.

Records access is among the two or three most common disputes between Michigan co-owners and their boards. Michigan's law on it has not moved in three years.

What owners are working from

The controlling authority is Bafna v Echo Valley Condominium Association, Mich Ct App No. 353785, decided 28 October 2021 and unpublished — which means, under MCR 7.215(C)(1), it is not precedentially binding on anyone.

Bafna read MCL 559.157 alongside MCL 450.2487 and required only a marginal connection between the request and how the association's dues are spent. That is a permissive standard, and it is the most owner-favourable statement Michigan has.

What the statute itself gives, and does not

MCL 559.157 entitles a co-owner to examine the association's books, records and contracts. Michigan law supplies no deadline for producing them, no cap on copying charges, and no penalty for refusal. Those three omissions are the whole practical problem, and other states have filled all three by statute.

1. LARA, Condominium Act Frequently Asked Questions — enforcement authority and the section 57 audit/review requirement ↩
2. Michigan Department of Attorney General — published formal opinions index ↩
3. AG Nessel Shares Top Consumer Complaints of 2025, 3 March 2026 — condominium associations counted within the Landlord/Tenant category ↩