This website discusses my dispute with the Board which resulted in my lawsuit against the Association and the Board.

The dispute was about how regular monthly assessments for Operation and Maintenance of the Association are apportioned. I want everyone in the Association to understand every part of the controversy, and understand every relevant Bylaw, every relevant Statute, and every computation.

[ Aug 2019 Update: The independent auditor reported in July that dues had indeed been incorrectly calculated for 3 years. In other words he validated all my claims and refuted the board's perfidious denials.]

According to our Bylaws, and a Michigan Statute, MCL 559.169(3), we must raise the money for operating expenses according to Percentage of Value. That's the Law. It's the Law of the State of Michigan and crystal clear in our Bylaws.

In January, 2016 the Board began assessing about 13% of the budget by Flat Fee instead of Percentage of Value.

I argue that no Board is permitted to invent new assessment formulas. The Bylaws instruct them what they must do, the State commands them to do it, and it's certainly best all around if every Board always assesses *exactly* like the laws say.

The effect of assessing by Flat Fee instead of Percentage of Value is to lower the dues for high-percent units and raise them for low percent co-owners. Even a high percent owner ought not endorse violating the law. If you are 2% and every Board assesses according to Percentage of Value, you'll never get assessed at 1.5% but you won't get assessed at 2.5% either.

Yes, some units pay $4,000 and some pay $3,000. But it's been that way for 44 years, and it's what every one agreed to do when they bought their unit, and it's required under law unless the members of the Association change it by 2/3rds vote.

More than $78,000 was improperly assessed by Flat Fee, costing 33 families more than $5,000. I was over-assessed by $200, Unit 51 by $300, Units 5,6,7,8 & 14 each more than $210, etc. Twenty co-owners were under-assessed, including 5 board members - make that 6 if you count current treasurer Henry P. Those board members gained ~$1,300.

Even if you saved a few bucks, ask yourself if it's a good thing for the Board to evade the Bylaws, violate State Law, underpay their own dues and overcharge most of the co-owners?

You can visit this page where you can find the legal stuff. Here is my argument that the affairs of the Association should be conducted under the Rule of Law.

Here is a calculator where you can find out if you were over-charged or under-charged and by how much.

The Board repeatedly and falsely claimed in court filings and to the members that the "surcharge" was to pay for cable, and on this page I explain why that's untrue.

One more thing. This Board spent several thousand dollars of your money defending the improper apportionment. That means that most of you are paying for lawyers working to continue overcharging you. For the 35 co-owners with less than 1.82 percent of value, had they won, you would have paid excess dues for the rest of your life. It's your Association, and your duty to see that it's run lawfully and properly.

[Jan. 2019 update:   The suit settled in October. See my Settlement Agreement, here. The settlement abolished the "utility surcharge" and restored the dues calculation to the correct formula, effective January 2019. In other words, in the end, they had to be forced to do what they ought to have done from the start and what many co-owners cordially asked them to do nearly 3 years earlier. By the way, every time they say they corrected the dues in July 2018, they are lying.]