Hawthorne Ridge Homeowners Association v. Yan Wang
336077
Mich. Ct. App.Dec 26, 2017Background
- Homeowners Yan Wang and Hongyan Chen repainted their house exterior light blue in June 2015 without submitting the Association’s required pre‑approval application.
- The Hawthorne Ridge Homeowners Association (Association) informed them the color was not acceptable; they then submitted an application which the Association denied.
- At bench proceedings Chen admitted they began painting before requesting or receiving approval. The trial court found the chosen color was not an "earth tone."
- The trial court granted the Association’s motion for summary disposition, ordering the homeowners to repaint to a specified color and awarding fees/costs.
- On appeal Wang and Chen argued (1) factual error as to whether the color was an earth tone, (2) the Association lacked authority because it had been administratively dissolved (and reinstatement was improper/fraudulent), and (3) the fee award was reviewable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary disposition was proper given factual dispute over whether the new color was an "earth tone" | Association: Bylaws permit only light earth‑tones and the color was not permitted; enforcement appropriate | Wang & Chen: Evidence showed color was an earth tone; factual dispute precluded summary disposition | Court: Although making factual findings at C(10) was error, summary disposition nonetheless proper because defendants violated by failing to obtain prior approval |
| Whether failure to obtain prior approval suffices to require repainting | Association: Bylaws require prior approval; violation allows Association to require repainting at owner’s expense | Wang & Chen: Argue compliance with earth‑tone guideline obviates need for approval or that Association lacked authority to enforce | Held for Association: Bylaws clearly require prior approval; violation allows remedy regardless of the color dispute |
| Whether Association had authority during repainting period due to prior administrative dissolution | Association: It was reinstated in Sept. 2015 under MCL 450.2925; reinstatement validates rights retroactively | Wang & Chen: Association was dissolved in 2011 and lacked authority; reinstatement was improper/fraudulent and may be a different entity | Court: Reinstatement statutes restore corporate rights and make contracts/enforcement valid; defendants’ fraud theory unsupported and inadequately briefed |
| Whether appellate court may review award of attorney fees and costs | Association: Prevailing party entitled to costs; fee award is separate postjudgment order | Wang & Chen: Trial court erred in awarding fees/costs | Court: No jurisdiction to review fee award on this appeal because no separate appeal from the postjudgment fee/costs order had been filed |
Key Cases Cited
- Barnard Mfg Co, Inc. v. Gates Performance Engineering, Inc., 285 Mich App 362 (summary disposition standard for C(10))
- MEEMIC Insurance Co v. DTE Energy Co., 292 Mich App 278 (summary disposition factual-test standard)
- Allison v. AEW Capital Mgmt, LLP, 481 Mich 419 (view facts in light most favorable to nonmoving party)
- Burkhardt v. Bailey, 260 Mich App 636 (trial court may not make factual findings on C(10) motion)
- Mitcham v. Detroit, 355 Mich 182 (appellate briefing obligations—abandonment of unsupported arguments)
- Avery v. Demetropoulos, 209 Mich App 502 (multiple final orders; postjudgment fee orders treated as final for appealability)
- McIntosh v. McIntosh, 282 Mich App 471 (separate appeal required for postjudgment fee award)