Background
The dispute concerned 14 planned units in the Richard Rowhouses condominium project. The master deed designated the units as “need not be built,” and construction commenced in March 2004. Bank of America later acquired the units through foreclosure and assigned its developer rights to Triple Properties Detroit, LLC, which purported to sell the units to PCJ Investments, LLC in 2019.
PCJ sued to quiet title after the condominium association asserted that the units had reverted to the project’s general common elements in 2014 under the former version of MCL 559.167(3). Triple cross-claimed against the association, arguing that partial construction prevented reversion, a proposed amendment to the master deed reinstated the units, and equitable estoppel barred the association’s ownership claim. The circuit court granted summary disposition to the association. PCJ and Triple later placed a $1 million settlement on the record, but Triple resisted payment, contending that recording the association’s ownership was a condition precedent.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed. It first held that it had jurisdiction because the June 10, 2024 order dismissed all claims with prejudice and was final, notwithstanding the circuit court’s retention of jurisdiction to enforce the settlement and manage the second payment held in escrow.
On the merits, the court held that the former MCL 559.167(3) required completion—not merely commencement or partial performance—of construction within 10 years. Because the units were neither completed nor withdrawn, they reverted by operation of law to the general common elements in 2014. The unrecorded proposed amendment to the master deed never became effective, the association’s failure to record a replat did not prevent reversion, and the record did not support equitable estoppel. Binding precedent also foreclosed Triple’s due-process and takings challenges because the statutory period provided adequate notice and Triple’s failure to act caused its property rights to lapse.
The court further held that the parties formed an enforceable settlement in open court under MCR 2.507(G). The association’s recording of its ownership was not a condition precedent to Triple’s payments; the referenced “paperwork” was the written settlement agreement. Triple’s later objections amounted to an ineffective change of heart, so the circuit court properly enforced the $1 million settlement and entered the written agreement despite Triple’s refusal to sign.
Key Takeaways
- Under the former MCL 559.167(3), “need not be built” condominium units had to be completed or withdrawn within 10 years to avoid automatic reversion to the general common elements.
- An amendment to a master deed is ineffective until recorded, and failure to record a replat does not prevent statutory reversion.
- A settlement placed on the record in open court is binding when the parties assent to its essential terms; a later change of heart does not invalidate it.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the consequences of the former Condominium Act provision governing unfinished units: partial construction did not preserve development rights after the statutory deadline, and reversion occurred automatically without a recorded deed or replat.
It also underscores the finality of in-court settlements. Parties cannot add an unexpressed condition after assenting on the record, and a court may enforce the agreed terms even when one party later refuses to sign the written memorialization.