The Coronavirus and the State of Emergency
On March 10, 2020, the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services identified the first two presumptive cases of coronavirus, also known as COVID-19, in the State of Michigan. On March 16, 2020 Governor Whitmer signed Executive Order 2020-9 which closed restaurants, bars, cigar lounges, movie theaters, casinos, libraries, and gyms from the public. On March 23, 2020, Governor Whitmer signed Executive Order 2020-21 which imposed a temporary stay-at-home order for non-essential matters, which was later extended and expanded through Executive Orders 2020-42, 2020-59, 2020-70, 2020-77, and 2020-92, and is currently in effect for the majority of the State through at least May 28, 2020.
In Michigan, as in most states, the state authority has significantly limited access to public places, stores, restaurants, movie theaters, offices, and other businesses through the issuance of executive orders prohibiting such access. For businesses whose viability depends on the public’s ability to access that business’ physical location, the issuance of such orders has resulted in a loss of use of the property and a severe interruption in business. For some, their insurance policies may appear to insure against loss of use of the insured property when a civil authority prohibits the insured from using the insured property, such as through issuance of an executive prohibiting such access, or there is damage to the property resulting in its loss of use. While it may seem as though the business climate created by the Coronavirus (COVID-19) is unique to our generation, this is not the first time a Governor’s executive order has impacted businesses in Michigan and there are several cases from the Michigan Court of Appeals which can provide guidance.
The full economic impact of COVID-19 and its related “stay at home” orders cannot be measured right now. Anecdotal evidence suggests that widespread delinquencies and defaults have begun. Condominium and homeowner associations are not immune and can rightly expect negative consequences. As homeowners struggle with job disruptions and loss of income, the likelihood of delay or default in payment of assessments becomes a stark reality. And the association’s ability to collect past due assessments is substantially affected by unpaid property taxes, by delinquent mortgages having priority over assessments and by homeowner bankruptcies. This environment poses unique challenges for associations to continue services uninterrupted, especially when vendors and employees expect timely payment. Read more
Law & Crime Network recently interviewed Kevin Hirzel regarding national issues that are arising due to the Covid-19 crisis . In this Q & A, Kevin Hirzel addresses rent and mortgage concerns, loan modifications, State Executive Orders and Federal stimulus efforts. Viewers from around the nation have questions and concerns about this pandemic and want to know what rights they have. Covid-19 is causing housing concerns across the nation and Kevin Hirzel provides advice on how to navigate this national crisis. The interview can he found here.
Kevin Hirzel is the Managing Member of Hirzel Law, PLC and concentrates his practice on commercial litigation, community association law, condominium law, Fair Housing Act compliance, homeowners association and real estate law. Mr. Hirzel is a fellow in the College of Community Association Lawyers, a prestigious designation given to less than 175 attorneys in the country. He has been a Michigan Super Lawyer’s Rising Star in Real Estate Law from 2013-2019, an award given to only 2.5% of the attorneys in Michigan each year. Mr. Hirzel has been named a Leading Lawyer in Condominium & HOA law by Leading Lawyers Magazine in 2018 and 2019, an award given to less than 5% of the attorneys in Michigan each year. He represents community associations, condominium associations, cooperatives, homeowners associations, property owners and property managers throughout Michigan. He may be reached at (248) 478-1800 or [email protected]
There are several ways in which property can be held by multiple owners. For married couples, one of the most commonly used estates is the tenancy by the entireties. It provides a right of survivorship that enables a surviving spouse to hold property without having to proceed with probate. In Michigan, this estate is only available to married couples. In some instances, parties may seek to mimic the right of survivorship contained in a tenancy by the entirety by holding property as joint tenants with a full right of survivorship. Similar to a tenancy by the entireties, this estate cannot be unilaterally severed by the act of one of the parties, and it provides an indestructible right of survivorship to the surviving joint tenants. This may make it appear to be a more attractive option, in some circumstances, to a tenancy in common which is the presumptive estate for unmarried individuals in Michigan. However, parties seeking to utilize a joint tenancy with full right of survivorship should be aware of the risks that come with such an estate.
Restrictive covenants in Michigan are valuable property rights and have been effectively used to assist in the orderly development of Michigan communities. The rights contained in restrictive covenants are used by developers to implement their community visions and by property owners to protect and enhance the value of their homes. Once adopted these provisions often require unanimous consent to change or modify by default, however, in many cases the original declarant includes an amendment provision to permit a stated percentage of lot owners (or other interested parties), less than all, to adopt an amendment. The effective date of an amendment, even if validly adopted, may be subject to interpretation if the restrictive covenant creates successive terms. Any party seeking to adopt an amendment to its declaration should be aware of these risks and the potential impact of the expiration of a period of time contained in their declaration. Read more
On October 25, 2018, the Michigan Court of Appeals issued an unpublished opinion in the matter of Concerned Property Owners of Garfield Township, Inc v Charter Township of Garfield, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued October 25, 2018 (Docket No. 342831). The Garfield case involved the interpretation of a zoning ordinance that addressed short-term rentals of residential properties in certain districts. In Garfield, a number of homeowners frequently rented out their homes for short-term intervals, usually for about one week in duration. In September 2013, the Garfield Township Zoning Administrator expressed an opinion that the zoning ordinance then in effect, called “Ordinance 10”, permitted short-term rentals.
At some point in their lives, most adults have signed a lease agreement, whether it be the leasing of an automobile, an apartment on campus while attending college or renting a home. Since most of these leases are standard forms offered on a “take it or leave it” basis by the lessor or landlord, negotiating the base rent and term of the lease is typically the main and only focus for the lessee.