Bafna v. Echo Valley Condo. Ass'n
| Decision Date | 28 October 2021 |
| Docket Number | 353785 |
| Parties | SHALBHADRA BAFNA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ECHO VALLEY CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
UNPUBLISHED
Oakland Circuit Court LC No. 2019-176357-CZ
Before: Gadola, P.J., and Jansen and O'Brien, JJ.
Defendant Echo Valley Condominium Association, appeals as of right the trial court's order granting summary disposition in part to plaintiff, Shalbhadra Bafna, under MCR 2.116(I)(2). Plaintiff is an owner of a condominium unit in Echo Valley so plaintiff is a co-owner of defendant. At issue in this case is plaintiff's requests to inspect defendant's records. Defendant denied plaintiff's record-inspection requests because, according to defendant, the requests did not state a proper purpose. This led plaintiff to file a complaint in the trial court in order to compel his record-inspection requests. While plaintiff's record-inspection requests were lengthy and often difficult to follow, his complaint to compel was much clearer. On the basis of statements in plaintiff's complaint, the trial court ordered defendant to let plaintiff inspect records identified in plaintiff's complaint. On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court erred by basing its ruling on plaintiff's complaint rather than his record-inspection requests. We disagree. After reviewing plaintiff's record-inspection requests, along with his subsequent complaint, we conclude that the requests, once clarified stated a proper purpose. We therefore affirm.
This case arises out of plaintiff's requests to inspect seven records: (1) bills or invoices showing the cost of past litigation; (2) records relating to orders for wrist bands that were given to co-owners to allow them access to the condominium's pool (referred to as "swimming bands" or "swimming pool bands" by the parties); (3) work orders or invoices for bulb replacement done in plaintiff's building; (4) Board minutes from April 2019 until September 2019; (5) records relating to when plaintiff's checks from approximately June 2019 through September 2019 were received by defendant and posted to plaintiff's account; (6) Board minutes for 2018; and (7) financial statements for 2017 and 2018. Plaintiff requested to inspect these records over the course of several months. Defendant's responses to these requests are not included in the following summation because the only relevance of defendant's responses is that they denied plaintiff's requests, which led to this lawsuit.
In a June 13, 2019 email, plaintiff requested records relating to the bulb replacement in his building, but he did not specify a purpose for his request. He also requested information about the new process for "swimming pool bands" because he was not informed about the new process.
In a June 19, 2019 email, plaintiff "refresh[ed]" his June 13 requests. He again stated that he wanted the bulb-replacement invoice, but this time he explained he wanted it "to know cost" and whether it would save money to have the job done by co-owners like plaintiff. He also requested two new records. First, he requested attorney bills for 2018 because he wanted to know "how much the association paid." Second, he requested "2018 annual meet records" but he did not give a reason.
Plaintiff sent another email on June 21, 2019, this time requesting "to inspect records about swimming bands" because the information about the bands in the newsletter "was not correct," he was unable to contact anyone to clarify the rules for receiving the band, and he wanted to see if he was "being disliked or biased and treated unfairly."
On July 10, 2019, plaintiff sent another email requesting to inspect records. This time plaintiff asked to inspect the "[b]alance sheet for year ending 2018 2017 [sic] for comparative study with or without reviewed/audited." He also requested to know defendant's income for 2018 and 2019, and wanted a "[s]tatement of source and application of fund" for 2018 and 2019.
On July 24, 2019, plaintiff sent a series of questions about how checks for dues were deposited. For instance, plaintiff asked when monthly dues were deposited to the account, how many days between when a check was deposited with the bank and when it got "posted in books," and what was the "last date of payment before fine starts." Plaintiff also requested a "sample copy of check deposited last time," or "if electronically then screen print." Plaintiff did not give a reason for these requests or questions in the July 24 email.
On August 5, plaintiff requested to see board minutes for January 2017 through April 2018 "to see discussion of Board about changing legal consultation." He did not elaborate further.
On August 23, 2019, plaintiff sent an email attempting to clarify which records he sought to inspect and his purpose for inspecting those records. He first stated that he wanted to inspect the invoices for the lightbulbs installed in his building because he wanted to see how much was spent and whether it would be more cost effective to have co-owner volunteers change the bulbs. He also wanted to see whether the contractor who replaced the bulbs "charge[d] for two trips" because the job had to be redone as it was done improperly the first time.
In the same email, plaintiff stated that he wished to inspect the Board minutes for the last three months to see, among other things, whether plaintiff's suggestion for installing LED bulbs was discussed. He also requested to inspect attorney bills from past litigation because he wanted to see how much defendant spent "going to court." He said that this request was also for "intellectual curiosity."
Plaintiff also requested to inspect records relating to the swimming bands—such as the invoice for the bands, and when and where they were delivered—to see whether "lock/key was better option" in order to reduce cost to co-owners. The email explained that the date of delivery was relevant because there was trouble getting a band to plaintiff, despite him calling the board-designated contact to get his band. He also wanted to review the order date to know whether it was possible to get the bands "before swimming days started[.]"
As stated, at each step along the way, defendant largely denied plaintiff's requests, which led to this lawsuit. Plaintiff filed the instant complaint on September 4, 2019, alleging that he sought to inspect the seven records indicated above, and gave more detailed reasons for wanting to inspect each record.
On January 21, 2020, defendant filed its motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8) and (10). In the motion, defendant argued that, pursuant to MCL 450.2487, plaintiff had to state a proper purpose in order to inspect documents when his inspection request was made. Defendant attached numerous correspondences between plaintiff and defendant, and argued that, based on those correspondences, it was impossible to determine what documents plaintiff was requesting to inspect and for what purpose he was requesting the inspection. Defendant contended that, for this reason, plaintiff's inspection requests were made without a proper purpose, so defendant was justified in denying the requests.
Plaintiff's response to the motion was difficult to follow, but during the course of his response, plaintiff restated his seven record-inspection requests with the accompanying reason from his complaint, asserted that if defendant read plaintiff's requests "properly" then plaintiff's proper purpose for his inspection requests would be clear, and argued that defendant had the burden to prove that plaintiff's purposes for his requests were improper under MCL 450.2487. He also generally asserted that he was entitled to inspect the records by virtue of MCL 559.157, which did not require him to state a proper purpose.
On April 13, 2020, the trial court issued an opinion and order without oral argument. In its opinion, the trial court repeated the record-inspection requests from plaintiff's complaint and noted that they were difficult to follow, but ultimately concluded that they were "clear enough to inform [defendant] of what records Plaintiff is seeking, and why." In a footnote, the court also pointed out that "Plaintiff's Complaint and response to [defendant's motion for summary disposition were] much clearer" than his record-inspection requests. The trial court ultimately concluded that "plaintiff's requests [were] for specific categories of documents, and all of them relate[d]" to a proper purpose—namely "perceived mismanagement by the Board or the property manager which has a direct effect, primarily financial, on Plaintiff as a co-owner." Though the trial court did not go through each of plaintiff's requests, it did reason that the request related to the" 'swimming bands' issue," records related to the "light bulb replacement" issue, and documents related to "the receipt of Plaintiff's dues checks" all had a proper purpose. The trial court lastly acknowledged that MCL 559.157 also applied to this case because it dealt with record-inspection requests for condominiums, but declined to decide whether MCL 559.157 controlled because the court concluded that, regardless, plaintiff had stated a proper purpose for all his requests. Accordingly, the trial court denied defendant's motion for summary disposition and granted summary disposition to plaintiff insofar as he sought to inspect defendant's records. Defendant now appeals that opinion and order as of right.
Appellate courts review de novo a trial court's grant of summary disposition. Innovation Ventures v Liquid Mfg, 499 Mich. 491, 506; 885 N.W.2d 861 (2016). Defendant moved for summary disposition in relevant part under MCR 2.116(C)(8) and ...
To continue reading
Request your trial