Olga M Brock v. Winding Creek Homeowners Association
328848
| Mich. Ct. App. | Apr 25, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Olga Brock, a homeowner and member of Winding Creek Homeowners Association (HOA), sued the HOA alleging breaches of the association bylaws (accounting irregularities and allowing fences/sheds without board approval).
- Brock filed an initial pro se complaint, a first amended complaint (with counsel) asserting claims under the Michigan Condominium Act (MCA), and proposed a second amended complaint with attachments.
- The trial court previously ordered Brock to amend her complaint to plead a legal claim; the first amended complaint nonetheless sought relief under the MCA though the development is a single-family subdivision, not a condominium.
- The HOA moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8) and (C)(10); the trial court granted dismissal under (C)(8), concluding the MCA did not apply and Brock failed to state a claim.
- Brock appealed, arguing the court erred in granting summary disposition and in denying leave to amend; the Court of Appeals reviewed de novo and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the complaint stated a claim warranting denial of (C)(8) dismissal | Brock argued her allegations (accounting failures; unauthorized fences/sheds) state cognizable covenant/contract and injunctive claims | HOA argued Brock relied on the MCA which does not apply to a non‑condominium HOA, so complaint fails as a matter of law | Court affirmed dismissal: pleadings did not establish a legally cognizable claim; MCA inapplicable; accounting/fraud claim waived and unsupported; fence/shed allegations conclusory |
| Whether trial court erred by denying leave to amend (second amended complaint) | Brock sought leave to amend and submitted permits/emails purportedly showing bylaw violations | HOA opposed; trial court did not rule but concluded amendment would be futile given defects and reliance on MCA in jurisdictional statement | Court held denial of leave to amend was effectively not reversible because amendment would be futile: attachments did not establish a prima facie violation and proposed pleading still relied on MCA |
Key Cases Cited
- Maiden v. Rozwood, 461 Mich. 109 (1999) (standard for reviewing motions to dismiss and accepting well‑pleaded allegations)
- Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) (pro se complaints are held to less stringent standards)
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976) (pro se pleadings liberally construed)
- Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957) (complaints should not be dismissed unless no set of facts could entitle relief)
- Weymers v. Khera, 454 Mich. 639 (1997) (standards for leave to amend pleadings)
- Scherer v. Hellstrom, 270 Mich. App. 458 (2006) (appellate court may affirm for right result reached for wrong reason)