Thomas Szematowicz v. Citation Club I LLC, 327713

Background

Plaintiff (social guest of a tenant) fell when a concrete stair tread at Citation Club Apartments collapsed; he sustained significant injuries.
Defendants: Citation Club I, LLC (owner) and Oakland Management Corporation (manager). Stairs accessed a third-floor apartment with no elevator.
Evidence: a pre-incident estimate to replace concrete treads with galvanized steel, an on-site stockpile of replacement treads, and testimony about routine maintenance inspections (no written inspection protocol and uncertainty about thoroughness).
Plaintiff sued for premises liability (failure to maintain/inspect/warn) and statutory violations (Farmington Hills Code of Ordinances, MCL 554.139, MCL 125.471, others). Defendants moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8) and (C)(10).
Trial court: granted summary disposition—held no actual or constructive notice of defect, statutory claims failed (MCL 554.139 inapplicable to non-tenants; FHCO does not create private cause of action); refused to consider a late affidavit. Plaintiff appealed.
Court of Appeals: reversed summary disposition on premises liability (genuine issue of fact on notice), affirmed dismissal of statutory claims, and upheld exclusion of the untimely affidavit.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendants had actual or constructive notice of the defective stair (premises liability)	Evidence of estimate to replace treads, stockpile of treads, and inspection practices show constructive notice or inadequate inspections	No proof defendants knew or should have known of the particular defect; inspections sufficient; estimate unrelated to condition	Reversed as to premises liability — factual dispute exists on notice; summary disposition improper under MCR 2.116(C)(10)
Whether MCL 554.139 (landlord duty to keep premises in repair) applies to plaintiff (social guest)	Statute protects users of residential premises; should apply	Statutory protection is limited to lessees/licensees; plaintiff not a tenant so lacks standing	Affirmed — plaintiff admitted no landlord-tenant claim and, in any event, statute protects tenants/licensees only
Whether Farmington Hills Code of Ordinances creates a private cause of action enforceable by plaintiff	Code violation supports claim and duty to maintain safe premises	FHCO does not expressly create a private right of action	Affirmed — plaintiff abandoned appellate argument and court found no viable private right pleaded
Whether the trial court abused discretion by refusing to consider an untimely affidavit submitted at the hearing	Affidavit from contractor would support that stairs were deteriorating due to salt; should have been accepted	Affidavit was untimely, not filed or exchanged per scheduling order and MCR deadlines	Affirmed — exclusion was within court’s discretion for failing to comply with scheduling and MCR 2.116(G) filing deadlines

Key Cases Cited

Cuddington v United Health Servs, Inc, 298 Mich. App. 264 (standard for reviewing MCR 2.116(C)(10) motions)
Bennett v Detroit Police Chief, 274 Mich. App. 307 (definition of genuine issue of material fact)
Riddle v McLouth Steel Prod Corp, 440 Mich. 85 (landowner duty to protect invitees from latent defects)
Stitt v Holland Abundant Life Fellowship, 462 Mich. 591 (duty to inspect and warn; liability for known or discoverable dangerous conditions)
Clark v Kmart Corp, 465 Mich. 416 (constructive notice: condition’s character or duration may impute knowledge)
Grandberry–Lovette v Garascia, 303 Mich. App. 566 (whether inspections were reasonably conducted is often a jury question)
Allison v AEW Capital Mgt, LLP, 481 Mich. 419 (MCL 554.139 supplies statutory protection to lessees/licensees and creates contract-based remedies)
Skinner v Square D Co, 445 Mich. 153 (trial court may not weigh credibility on summary disposition)
Maiden v Rozwood, 461 Mich. 109 (standard for MCR 2.116(C)(8) motions)