No new covenant binds an owner without that owner's consent. A release provision is not an amendment provision.

Controlling authority. Woodbine has no amendment provision — only a 75% release provision. Mandatory dues cannot be imposed without unanimous consent of all 140 homeowners.

Amendments passed by less-than-unanimous vote during a renewal period don't bind dissenters until that period expires.

Currently irrelevant — Woodbine has no amendment provision at all. Would only matter if one were added (itself requiring unanimity).

Where original covenants contain an amendment provision specifying a percentage, dissenting owners are bound by properly passed and recorded amendments.

Shows the contrast — Woodbine's restrictions lack such a provision, which is exactly why unanimous consent is required.

A voluntary HOA with only ~65-70% membership has standing to enforce recorded deed restrictions in court.

Directly applicable. The WIA has standing to enforce existing restrictions even without 100% membership. Any individual lot owner also has independent standing.

Affirmed (3-3 equal division) that 'single family residence purposes' covenant prohibits STRs. Court of Appeals rulings now binding statewide.

Woodbine's 'private residence purposes only' language is virtually identical. If the restrictions are enforceable, the existing language would prohibit Airbnb/VRBO under this ruling.

Renting property for short-term use is a commercial use, even if the activity occurring on the property is residential in nature.

Establishes the key principle: the nature of the rental transaction (short-term, profit-driven) makes it commercial regardless of what tenants do on the property.

'Residential purposes only' restriction alone — even without explicit commercial-use prohibition — suffices to bar STRs.

Removes any argument that explicit anti-commercial language is needed. If enforceable, Woodbine's existing residential-use restriction would be sufficient — no additional anti-commercial language needed.

Renting for days or weeks removes the permanent, private character; property functions as commercial lodging.

Reinforces the principle that STRs are fundamentally different from long-term residential use.

Even long-term rentals can violate commercial-use restrictions when the owner treats property purely as a profit-making enterprise.

Extends the principle beyond short-term rentals to any purely commercial rental operation.

Restrictions in a common development scheme bind all lots if subsequent purchasers have actual or constructive notice (reciprocal negative easements).

Supports enforceability of Woodbine's uniform scheme — all lots are bound even if a specific lot's deed doesn't explicitly mention the restrictions.

Michigan has a firm stance against restraints on alienation.

Direct prohibitions on resale (anti-flipping covenants, minimum hold periods) would likely be struck down.

Profit-sharing clauses on early resale are unreasonable restraints on alienation.

Minimum hold periods, rights of first refusal, or anti-flipping provisions would similarly be invalidated.