William Deghetto v. Beaumont's 7 Harbors White & Duck Lake Assoc, 330972

Background

Plaintiffs are owners of lots across six subdivisions collectively called Seven Harbors; defendant is the homeowners’ association for the development and sought to enforce membership and maintenance-fee covenants.
Original Beaumont conveyances (1930s–1960s) used different deed forms: early deeds (1935 form) contained express, time-limited restrictions (expired Jan 1, 1960) and membership/fee language; later 1956 and 1959 recorded Deed Restrictions applied to various plats and stated they would expire Jan 1, 1986 unless extended by written consent of 75% of the membership.
Defendant argued the 1959 Amendment to its Articles of Incorporation (adding plats and addressing fees) and other documents extended the 1956/1959 restrictions and made membership/fee obligations perpetual and binding on all lots.
Plaintiffs sued for declaratory relief after defendant asserted dues were mandatory and began enforcing liens; cross-motions for summary disposition followed.
The trial court granted plaintiffs’ summary disposition (MCR 2.116(C)(10)) and denied defendant’s motion; the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 1956/1959 Deed Restrictions were validly extended past Jan 1, 1986	Deed restrictions expired on Jan 1, 1986 and were not extended per their terms	1959 Amendment to Articles of Incorporation (and later actions) constituted valid extension, approved by 75%	Held: Not extended — extension language must appear in controlling document and 75% written consent required but lacking.
Whether six specific 1950s deeds created covenants that run with the land binding successors	Those deeds do not contain express language creating covenants that run with the land; thus successors are not bound	Original grantees agreed to membership/fees; obligation runs with the land and binds current owners	Held: Not binding — the six deeds lack express run-with-the-land language; courts will not enlarge restrictions by implication.
Whether a reciprocal negative easement (common-scheme) binds lots without recorded restrictions	Expired restrictions and lack of coverage for SP7 prevent application of a reciprocal scheme now	Common grantor, similar plats, and similar restrictions evidence a common plan binding all lots	Held: No reciprocal negative easement — the scheme expired and cannot be revived; doctrine does not apply post-expiration.
Whether laches bars plaintiffs’ declaratory action	Plaintiffs filed promptly after defendant declared dues mandatory; no prejudicial delay	Enforcement is inequitable because association relied on dues for years and was prejudiced by plaintiffs’ refusal to pay	Held: Laches does not apply — plaintiffs did not unreasonably delay and defendant showed no prejudice caused by any delay.

Key Cases Cited

Bloomfield Estates Improvement Ass’n, Inc v City of Birmingham, 479 Mich 206 (deed restrictions are contracts and must be enforced as written)
Conlin v Upton, 313 Mich App 243 (restrictive covenants must be expressly provided in controlling documents; courts will not enlarge restrictions)
Mueller v Bankers’ Trust Co of Muskegon, 262 Mich 53 (distinguishes personal covenants from those running with the land)
Lanski v Montealegre, 361 Mich 44 (doctrine of reciprocal negative easements and requirements for a common-scheme enforcement)
Sanborn v McLean, 233 Mich 227 (reciprocal negative easement runs with the land until expiration or destruction)