Michigan Senate voted 34–1 to hand developers back land that reverted to co-owners
Michigan Senate voted 34–1 to hand developers back land that reverted to co-owners
2026-09-12 · Michigan · Legislation · Pending — not yet law
What happened. The Michigan Senate passed Senate Bill 272 on 19 March 2026 by 34 votes to 1. The bill would make a 2016 amendment to the Condominium Act retroactive, and in doing so would restore construction rights over land that, under current law as the Court of Appeals reads it, has already reverted to co-owners as general common elements.1
It is not law. Since 19 March it has sat in the House Committee on Regulatory Reform without action.
The machinery it touches
MCL 559.167 is the provision that disposes of condominium units a developer plans but never builds. Undeveloped land in a condominium plan reverts to the co-owners as general common elements after ten years. The Legislature amended the section in September 2016 to define “undeveloped land” and to exclude units depicted on the condominium subdivision plan as containing no vertical improvements.
Then in 2019 the Court of Appeals held the 2016 amendment was not retroactive — Cove Creek Condominium Association v Vistal Land & Home Development, 330 Mich App 679 — which, in the Senate Fiscal Agency's phrase, “reinstated this confusion for condominium subdivision plans established before the 2016 amendment.”
What SB 272 would change
One sentence, surgically placed. The S-1 substitute adds to the subsection (7) carve-out the words “before or after September 21, 2016” and “regardless of the date of the creation of the condominium project or of that condominium subdivision plan.” That makes the 2016 exclusion apply backwards, to projects created before it existed.2
Sponsors: Sens. Roger Hauck (R-34) and Mark Huizenga (R-30) — two Republicans, carrying a bill through a Democratic-majority Senate to a 34–1 vote.
Who wins and who loses, stated plainly
The Senate Fiscal Agency's stated rationale is developer-side: testimony indicated the Cove Creek result “resulted in financial loss for developers and families building condos.” The fiscal note anticipates a “minimal negative fiscal impact on the State and local government units… due to the likely loss of taxable value from these properties” — which is a quiet way of saying land that would have become taxable improved units stays undeveloped, or changes hands.
For an existing association, the loss is concrete. Land that reverted became general common elements the co-owners own. Retroactivity takes it back out of the association's balance sheet and puts a developer's build-out rights back on top of it — in a project the current co-owners bought into believing the build-out was over.
Why this is the busiest line in Michigan condominium litigation
Because associations have been winning it, repeatedly, and the losses are large. Four Court of Appeals decisions in the past two years plus a federal one:
- Woodfield Greens Condominium Association v Soho Land Development, No. 371067 (16 March 2026, unpublished) — where units were not designated “must be built,” the 2002 version of MCL 559.167(3) extinguished the developer's rights by operation of law, and a unilateral attorney letter asserting the units were “must be built” cannot amend a master deed. Only a recorded amendment can.
- Charter Township of Fenton v Fenton Orchards Condominium Association, No. 370733 (17 September 2025, unpublished) — installing general common elements such as roads and utilities does not make units “developed,” following Elizabeth Trace Condominium Association v American Global Enterprises, 340 Mich App 435.
- Soho Land Development v Oakland County Treasurer, No. 368567 (16 December 2024, unpublished) — an “as-is, without warranty” conveyance cannot validate a transfer of units that no longer exist by operation of law.
- Triple Properties Detroit v First American Title Insurance, 6th Cir. No. 25-1986 (17 April 2026) — the resulting title loss falls on the buyer who let the deadline pass, not the insurer.
SB 272 would remove the premise those cases run on, for pre-2016 projects.
The reversion procedure the bill leaves intact
Worth knowing, because it is what an association still has to do correctly: a two-thirds affirmative vote of members in good standing, written notice to the developer by first-class mail, a 60-day developer window to withdraw the land or convert the units to “must be built,” then recording with the register of deeds and filing with the local assessor.
And a caution from the other direction. In Shenandoah Ridge Condominium Association v Bodary, No. 364972 (13 January 2025, published), the Court of Appeals held that individual co-owners lacked standing to bring a reversion claim — only the association had it — and that leaving a lis pendens on title for months after the underlying claims were dismissed supported slander of title, with special damages of $41,009 and $9,903 for a lost refinancing opportunity, plus attorney fees.
What to watch next
Whether House Regulatory Reform schedules SB 272 after the House returns on 15 September. A bill that cleared the Senate 34–1 is not short of support; it is short of committee time. If it does not move by the December sine die it dies with the 103rd Legislature and starts over.
Related Michigan HOA Topics
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.