Court Opinion

ID: 9943333
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-23 06:09:14.532819+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:46:47.054044
License: Public Domain

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to
                 revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

                           STATE OF MICHIGAN

                            COURT OF APPEALS

BAYBERRY GROUP, INC.,                                                UNPUBLISHED
                                                                     February 22, 2024
               Plaintiff/Counterdefendant-Appellant,

v                                                                    No. 362923
                                                                     Leelanau Circuit Court
CRYSTAL BEACH CONDOMINIUM                                            LC No. 2017-009956-CH
ASSOCIATION, GENTLE WINDS
CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, TALL TIMBER
CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, and GREAT
LAKES CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION,

               Defendants/Counterplaintiffs-
               Appellees.

Before: M. J. KELLY, P.J., and JANSEN and GARRETT, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

       This case returns to this Court following a remand to the trial court to make specific
findings of fact regarding the proportional use of a roadway easement, called the South Homestead
Road easement, by plaintiff, Bayberry Group, Inc., a successor to the developer of the Homestead
Resort, and defendant condominium associations at the Homestead. On remand, the parties
submitted trial briefs and argument using evidence presented during the original trial. Bayberry
appeals as of right the trial court’s decision and order after remand. For the reasons stated in this
opinion, we affirm.

                                        I. BASIC FACTS

      The prior opinion in this matter, Bayberry Group, Inc v Crystal Beach Condo Ass’n, 334
Mich App 385, 389-390; 964 NW2d 846 (2020), stated the underlying facts:

             This matter arises from a dispute involving the interpretation of
       condominium documents and Michigan common law as it relates to the obligations
       of defendants, Crystal Beach Condominium Association, Gentle Winds
       Condominium Association, Great Lakes Condominium Association, and Tall
       Timber Condominium Association, to pay for the maintenance, repair, and upkeep

                                                -1-
       of a roadway easement called the South Homestead Road easement. South
       Homestead Road connects defendants’ respective properties and other properties in
       The Homestead to M-22. Portions of Winds’ South Homestead Road traverse
       Gentle Winds’ property, Great Lakes’ property, and Tall Timber’s property.

               The Homestead is a recreational resort located on the shores of Lake
       Michigan. Defendants were four of the five earliest condominium projects at The
       Homestead, and defendants’ master deeds were recorded in the 1970s. Thereafter,
       the number of condominium associations at The Homestead increased. In 2013,
       Bayberry began engaging with representatives of the various condominium
       associations. Bayberry sought an agreement to share the costs of maintaining the
       roadways and other areas within The Homestead. As a result of these efforts, the
       Common Area Maintenance Agreement (“CAM agreement”) was created. The
       CAM agreement provided for maintenance of all of the “Roadway Areas” within
       The Homestead, which included the South Homestead Road easement. “Roadway
       Areas” included not only the paved or graveled roadways, but also “lawns and the
       entirety of any planting bed or any other landscaping lying wholly or partially
       within the width of the roadway easement.” A majority of the condominium
       associations serviced by South Homestead Road executed the CAM agreement, but
       defendants did not. The CAM agreement became effective on January 1, 2015.

              After defendants refused to pay a share of fees under the CAM agreement,
       Bayberry filed suit against defendants on July 13, 2017. In relevant part, Bayberry
       alleged that the South Homestead Road easement is a general common element of
       each condominium project and that, under defendants’ master deeds and bylaws,
       defendants were responsible for its maintenance, repair, and upkeep. Bayberry
       requested that it be awarded damages for maintenance costs from 2011 through
       2017 and that the trial court order defendants to “pay an amount equal to the total
       cost of maintenance, repair and upkeep of the Easement less the usage costs
       incurred by all other associations and Co-owners . . . .” Defendants denied that the
       South Homestead Road easement was listed as a common element in their
       condominium documents. In their affirmative defenses, defendants asserted that the
       doctrine of waiver and the defense of laches barred Bayberry’s claims for damages
       because Bayberry (and its predecessors in interest) had failed to request any cost-
       sharing payments for more than 35 years following the creation and recording of
       the condominium documents.

        Following a three-day bench trial, the trial court held that defendants were obligated under
common law to contribute their proportionate share of the cost for maintenance, repair, and upkeep
of the portion of South Homestead Road necessary for their safe ingress and egress, based upon
their use, and that Bayberry was obligated to contribute its proportionate share of the cost for
maintenance, repair, and upkeep, based upon use, for the portion of South Homestead Road that
crosses the property of defendants. The trial court held that the cost of future repair and
maintenance was to be distributed among all users in proportions that closely approximated the
usage of the parties. The trial court created a formula in an attempt to accomplish this. The trial
court used the following formula for allocating defendants’ proportional cost of repair,
maintenance, and upkeep of South Homestead Road:

                                                -2-
            Units Per Association/331 Total Units1 Utilizing South Homestead Road
                                              x
                    Repair/Maintenance/Upkeep Cost Per Foot x 3,840 feet

The trial court used the following formula for allocating Bayberry’s proportional cost of repair,
maintenance, and upkeep of South Homestead Road over defendants’ properties:

                247[2]/331 Total Units Utilizing South Homestead Road
                                            x
        Repair/Maintenance/Upkeep Cost Per Foot x 368 Feet (for Gentle Winds)
        Repair/Maintenance/Upkeep Cost Per Foot x 392 Feet (for Great Lakes)
         Repair/Maintenance/Upkeep Cost Per Foot x 219 feet (for Tall Timber)

        In the prior appeal, this Court rejected Bayberry’s argument that the trial court failed to
account for other users of South Homestead Road when calculating the proportional use of the
easement. Specifically, this Court noted that the trial court found approximately 3313 units used
the entire length of South Homestead Road. Bayberry Group, Inc, 334 Mich at 403. The 331 units
consisted of defendants’ 84 units, Bayberry’s127 units, plus 100 assumed units for other
condominium associations/homeowners. Id. at 404. This Court concluded that “when fashioning
a formula for allocation of use, the trial court took into account Bayberry’s use of the easement,
defendants’ use of the easement, and ‘other guests/homeowners[’]’ use of the easement. The trial
court then attributed the nonparties’ use of the easement to Bayberry.” Id.

        This Court concluded, however, that the trial court inappropriately relied upon speculation
instead of evidence and did not make specific findings of fact concerning why it assigned “100
assumed units” to Bayberry for nonparties’ use of the easement. Id. at 406-408. Relevant to the
issues raised in this appeal, this Court vacated that portion of the trial court’s opinion and order
and remanded for the trial court to make specific findings of fact on the proportion of each party’s
use of the easement as required under Bowen v Buck and Fur Hunting Club, 217 Mich App 191;
550 NW2d 850 (1996).4 Id. at 407-408.

1
  The total units utilizing South Homestead Road included “100 assumed units for other
condominium associations/homeowners.” Bayberry Group, Inc., 334 Mich App at 406.
2
 The units attributed to Bayberry was calculated by taking the total number of units using South
Homestead Road (331) and subtracting defendants’ 84 units.
3
 This Court noted that “the ‘331 units’ referred to by the trial court appeared to be the result of a
mathematical error in adding Bayberry’s 127 units, 100 ‘assumed’ units for the other condominium
associations, and defendants’ 84 units; the sum of 127, 100, and 84 is 311.” Bayberry Group, Inc.,
334 Mich App at 404 n 1.
4
  In Bowen, 217 Mich App at 194, this Court held that the maintenance and repairs costs of an
easement used jointly by both the dominant and servient owners are to be in proportion to each
party’s use.

                                                -3-
        On remand, the parties agreed that 599 units were eligible to use the full length of South
Homestead Road. The trial court approached the allocation of use issue under Bowen by reiterating
“the uncontested findings established in the prior order and affirmed on appeal,” and then
providing the relevant cost-allocation formulas. The court correctly noted that in the previous
appeal this Court did not dispute the formulas used to determine the parties’ proportional costs.
Rather, this Court concluded that the trial court relied upon speculation in finding that the total
units utilizing South Homestead Road was 331.5 On the basis of the evidence presented and the
parties’ agreement that the total number of units eligible to use the full length of South Homestead
Road was 599, the court found under Bowen that 599 total units actually used South Homestead
Road. The court then used 599, instead of 331, in the formulas. The trial court acknowledged
with respect to the portion of South Homestead Road that traversed defendants’ property that
Bayberry may not be responsible for the entire cost allocated to the 515 nondefendant units. The
court stated, however, that “allocation of these costs between the Plaintiff and non-Defendant
condominium associations, property owners and other entities is not before this Court and
therefore, the Court will not opine on this particular issue.”

                                   II. ALLOCATION OF COSTS

                                   A. STANDARD OF REVIEW

       “This Court reviews a trial court’s findings of fact in a bench trial for clear error and its
conclusions of law de novo. A finding is clearly erroneous where, after reviewing the entire record,
this Court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” Alan Custom
Homes, Inc v Kroll, 256 Mich App 505, 512; 667 NW2d 379 (2003) (citations omitted).

                                           B. ANALYSIS

         Bayberry appears to argue that the trial court failed to consider the seasonal use6 of South
Homestead Road when determining Bayberry’s proportionate use of South Hampton road that
traverses defendants’ property.7 It contends that the trial court assumed that all users of South
Homestead Road would use year round the portion of South Homestead Road between defendants’
property and the Beach Club at the end of South Homestead Road. Bayberry also contends that
the trial court “ignored the fact that the Beach Club is only open for four months of the year” and

5
    Again, the correct number should have been 311.
6
    Bayberry did not argue seasonal use of South Homestead Road in the original trial of this matter.
7
  Bayberry’s argument is not clear. To the extent that Bayberry’s argument might relate to
defendants’ proportionate cost of the South Homestead Road easement for ingress and egress, the
argument is waived because Bayberry agreed to the formula utilized by the trial court in
determining defendants’ proportional cost for their use of the easement. See, e.g., Grant v AAA
Mich/Wisconsin, Inc (On Remand), 272 Mich App 142, 148-149; 724 NW2d 498 (2006) (holding
that the plaintiff’s trial lawyer had waived a particular appellate argument by asserting a contrary
position in the trial court).

                                                  -4-
that only 13 Bayberry-owned hotel units use that portion of South Homestead Road beyond
defendants’ properties for eight months of the year. It further contends that the “evidence is clear
that there is no material traffic going over [defendants’] properties in the off season.” Bayberry
does not cite to any evidence presented in the trial court in support of these contentions. Bayberry
merely asserts its characterization of the evidence without providing a cogent legal analysis of the
trial court’s actual findings and determination. This argument is, therefore, abandoned.8 See
Redmond v Heller, 332 Mich App 415, 435 n 9, 449; 957 NW2d 357 (2020).

        Bayberry also argues that the trial court erred by allocating to Bayberry the use of
nonparties who traverse South Homestead Road over defendants’ property. It contends that it “is
being ordered to pay 85.9% of the costs that the Defendant Associations incur in maintaining South
Homestead Road as it travels over their fee simple property.” Bayberry misrepresents how the
trial court dealt with the other users of the South Homestead Road easement over defendants’
properties.

        This Court previously rejected Bayberry’s argument that the trial court failed to account
for the other users of the South Homestead Road easement. This Court stated that it was “clear
that the trial court accounted for other users when calculating the proportional use of the
easement.” Bayberry Group, Inc, 334 Mich at 403. “Specifically, the trial court noted that, along
with defendants, ‘South Homestead Road is also used by other condominium associations, home
owners, visitors to and employees and vendors of The Homestead Resort.’ ” Id. This Court also
noted that the trial court attributed “the nonparties’ use of the easement to Bayberry.” Id. at 404.
This Court did not conclude that the trial court erred by attributing the nonparties’ use of the
easement to Bayberry. On remand, the trial court specifically noted that the cost and repair for the
segments that traversed defendants’ properties had to be distributed among defendants and the
remaining 515 units in proportions that closely approximated the usage of the parties. Taking
these other users into account was necessary for the trial court to comply with the requirement in
Bowen that “the costs of repair and maintenance should be distributed among all users in
proportions that closely approximate the usage of the parties.” Bowen, 217 Mich App at 193
(quotation marks and citation omitted). The trial court therefore properly accounted for all of the
users of the easement over defendants’ properties. As the trial court suggested, allocation of the
costs between Bayberry and the nondefendant condominium associations is an issue between
Bayberry, the nondefendant condominium associations, property owners, and other entities who
use the easement over defendants’ properties.

       Affirmed. Defendants/appellees may tax costs as the prevailing parties. MCR 7.219(A).

                                                             /s/ Michael J. Kelly
                                                             /s/ Kathleen Jansen
                                                             /s/ Kristina Robinson Garrett

8
  Nevertheless, this Court remanded to the trial court for factual findings regarding the
proportionate use of South Homestead Road because the court’s finding that 331 total units used
the road was speculative. On remand, the parties agreed that the total number of units that used
South Homestead Road was 599.

                                                -5-