What the Restrictions Say
The 1976 restated restrictions contain 10 sections. Here's what they cover — and what's critically absent.
About this document
Before examining what the restrictions say, it's important to understand what the document on the WIA website actually is:
- •The PDF on the WIA website was created from 'Microsoft Word - Restrictions.doc' using PrimoPDF on June 15, 2009 — three months after the bylaws were adopted. It is not a scan of a 1976 original.
- •Author field in the PDF metadata: 'Owner'
- •No signatures of any party appear in the document
- •No identification of who created, restated, or revised these restrictions
- •No notary block or acknowledgment (required under MCL 565.201 for recording with Register of Deeds)
- •No recording stamp, filing mark, liber/page number, or document number — nothing indicating this was ever filed with Oakland County Register of Deeds
- •No legal description of the property — does not reference the plat by liber/page (Liber 58, Page 2)
- •Despite being titled 'Restated,' does not cite what it is restating — no reference to a prior recorded instrument
- •No specific date of adoption or execution — only 'Revised 1976' in the title
Standard elements missing from this document
The following elements, which are standard in recorded deed restriction documents, are all absent:
| Element | Significance |
|---|---|
| Signatures of any party | No one signed this document |
| Identification of the grantor/creator | Does not state who created or imposed these restrictions |
| Notary block or acknowledgment | Required under MCL 565.201 for recording with the Register of Deeds |
| Recording stamp or filing mark | No indication this was ever received by Oakland County Register of Deeds |
| Liber and page number | Recorded documents are assigned a liber/page or document number — none present |
| Legal description of the property | Does not reference the plat by liber/page (Liber 58, Page 2) or provide a metes-and-bounds description |
| Reference to the original restrictions | Despite being titled 'Restated,' does not cite what it is restating |
| Date of execution | 'Revised 1976' in the title but no specific date of adoption, execution, or filing |
| Identification of 'the Committee' | Referenced 14 times as the enforcement body but never defined — no names, appointment process, term of service, or accountability |
| Identification of 'the parties hereunder' | Section 9 references 'the parties hereunder' but these parties are never identified |
Who is "the Committee"? — referenced 14 times, never defined
The document grants broad authority to an entity called "the Committee" (or "the Restrictions Association, appointed by the Woodbine Subdivision, Board of Directors"). This body has the power to:
- ⚠Approve or deny all construction, alterations, fences, and outbuildings (Sections 1, 2)
- ⚠Refuse approval for aesthetic reasons in its 'sole opinion' (Section 2(c))
- ⚠Judge whether materials are 'properly concealed' and whether activities are 'noxious or offensive' (Section 5)
- ⚠Determine where easements are 'deemed necessary' (Section 6)
- ⚠Enter private property and remove violations at the owner's expense (Section 7)
Despite these broad powers, the Committee is never defined. No names, no appointment mechanism, no term of service, no quorum requirements, no appeal process, and no accountability structure appear anywhere in the document.
The central question: is this actually recorded?
The document as posted is an unsigned Word document converted to PDF in 2009. There are three possibilities:
1. The 1976 restatement was recorded, and this is a retyped copy
If the original 1976 document was properly signed, notarized, and recorded with Oakland County Register of Deeds, its provisions would run with the land and be enforceable regardless of this PDF's shortcomings. A title search at the Register of Deeds would confirm this.
2. The 1976 restatement was never recorded
If the document was never recorded, its enforceability against homeowners who purchased without actual knowledge of it is questionable under Michigan recording law. Unrecorded restrictions do not provide constructive notice to subsequent purchasers.
3. These restrictions were never a separate document — they are the text from the original plat
It was common practice in 1940s-era Michigan subdivisions to print restrictions directly on the plat map. The restrictions on the Woodbine plat (Liber 58, Page 2) may contain this exact text or an earlier version, and this 'restated' document may be an unauthorized retyping with modifications that were never formally adopted or recorded.
All three possibilities lead to the same recommended action: examine the original plat at Liber 58, Page 2, and search for any separately recorded restriction instruments at the Oakland County Register of Deeds.
What's Covered
- ✓Single-family residential use only — no commercial activity
- ✓Architectural review required for all exterior construction
- ✓Minimum building sizes and setback requirements
- ✓Household pets only — no livestock
- ✓Sign restrictions
- ✓Property maintenance and nuisance prevention
- ✓Self-help remedy for violations (Committee can abate and bill)
- ✓25-year auto-renewal with 75% release mechanism
- ✓Assignable enforcement rights
What's Missing
No mandatory dues or assessment authority
Zero language about mandatory membership, dues, assessments, or a common maintenance fund.
No amendment provision
Section 8 allows 75% to release (remove) restrictions, but there is NO mechanism to add new restrictions by majority vote. Under Conlin v. Upton, unanimous consent of all 140 owners is required to add new obligations.
No explicit leasing or rental rules
No minimum rental terms, caps, or licensing requirements. However, 'private residence purposes only' has been held to prohibit STRs under recent Michigan case law.
No HOA formation language
The restrictions do not establish, reference, or authorize a homeowners association with assessment powers.
All 10 Restriction Sections
Section 1: Residential Use Only — All lots must be used for private residence purposes only — single-family dwellings and private garages.
This is the foundation of all the restrictions. 'Private residence purposes only' has been held by Michigan courts to prohibit short-term rentals (Airbnb, VRBO) even without explicit rental language. See the STR analysis section for details.
Section 2: Architectural Control — A Committee must approve all exterior construction in writing before work begins.
The 'Committee' (referred to as the 'Restrictions Association, appointed by the Woodbine Subdivision... Board of Directors') has sole discretion to reject plans for aesthetic reasons. If the Committee fails to act within 30 days, approval is presumed — but only if plans conform to existing structures and zoning.
Section 3: Building Minimums — Minimum sizes: 1,200 sq ft ground floor (one-story), 800 sq ft (multi-story). Minimum 12,500 cubic feet total volume.
Front setback: 60 ft. Side/rear setbacks: 15 ft. These are separate from and may differ from Farmington Hills zoning requirements.
Section 4: Animals — Household pets only — no livestock or commercial animal keeping.
Straightforward.
Section 5: Refuse and Nuisance — No unsightly materials unless concealed. No noxious or offensive activities.
This provision can be used to address issues like construction debris, junk vehicles, and other visual nuisances.
Section 6: Signs — One for-sale/lease sign maximum (3 sq ft, 3 ft tall). Others require Committee permission.
The utility companies clause in this section requires companies to restore damage at their own expense.
Section 7: Violation Abatement — The Committee may enter property and summarily abate violations at the owner's expense.
This is a strong self-help remedy — the Committee can fix violations and bill the property owner, without liability for trespass. However, exercising this power without careful legal process could invite litigation.
Section 8: 25-Year Auto-Renewal — Restrictions auto-renew every 25 years from January 1, 1946. Current period: 2021–2046.
Owners of 75% or more of lots can release (remove) restrictions with a written agreement filed at Oakland County Register of Deeds at least 5 years before the end of a 25-year term. This is a RELEASE provision — it allows removal of restrictions, not addition of new ones. This distinction is legally decisive.
Section 9: Assignment of Enforcement Rights — Enforcement rights 'may be assigned' to a corporation or association of property owners.
This is permissive ('may'), not self-executing — it requires a formal written instrument, and the assignee must accept the obligations. Whether a formal assignment to the WIA was ever executed and recorded is unknown. Without it, enforcement authority technically belongs to 'the Committee' as defined in the original document.
Section 10: Severability — If any provision is held invalid, the remaining provisions survive.
Referenced in the table of contents but the available copy cuts off partway through Section 9. This clause means that discriminatory provisions in the original 1946 restrictions (which are void) do NOT invalidate the entire document.
Enforceability Concerns
Recording status of the 1976 restatement — If the 1976 document was never recorded with Oakland County, the enforceable restrictions may be limited to the original 1946 plat language.
The document posted on the WIA website bears no liber/page number or recording reference. Website posting proves nothing about recording status. The WIA bylaws reference a recording date of October 23, 1946 — which could be the original restrictions recorded separately from the 1946 plat.
Marketable Record Title Act (MRTA) — A preservation notice must be filed by September 29, 2027, or all restrictions are permanently extinguished.
Michigan's MRTA (MCL 565.101 et seq.) extinguishes covenants older than 40 years if not preserved by filing a Notice of Claim. Woodbine's restrictions are 80 years old. The 1976 restatement did NOT restart the clock. PA 13 of 2025 extended the deadline and explicitly allows property owners associations to file.
Section 9 assignment status — Whether enforcement rights were ever formally assigned to the WIA is unknown.
Without a formal assignment, enforcement authority technically belongs to 'the Committee' as defined in the original document. However, under Hammond Lake Estates (2006), even a voluntary association has standing to enforce recorded deed restrictions in court — so this is more of a procedural question than a substantive barrier.
Short-Term Rentals (Airbnb/VRBO)
If the restrictions are enforceable, Michigan case law indicates the existing 'residential purposes only' language would prohibit short-term rentals without any new covenant.
Under current Michigan case law, 'private residence purposes only' language prohibits STRs. Whether Woodbine's restrictions are properly recorded and enforceable is an open question (see Enforceability Concerns). Multiple Michigan Court of Appeals decisions — now binding statewide after the Michigan Supreme Court's 2025 Berlin Trust ruling — hold that renting property for short-term use is commercial activity that violates residential-use restrictions.
Key Cases
- • Berlin Trust v. Rubin (Mich. Supreme Court, July 2025) — affirmed by equal division, making Court of Appeals rulings binding statewide
- • Eager v. Peasley (2017) — short-term rental is commercial use, even if the activity is residential
- • Aldrich v. Sugar Springs (2023) — 'residential purposes only' alone suffices to bar STRs, even without explicit commercial-use prohibition
- • Cherry Home Ass'n v. Baker (2021) — renting for days/weeks removes the permanent, private character
Municipal enforcement: Farmington Hills also banned non-owner-occupied STRs in September 2023 (5-year amortization, expires ~2028). Report violations to Building Division: (248) 871-2450 or [email protected].
Note on Discriminatory Covenant Language
The original 1946 restrictions reportedly contained discriminatory provisions. These are void under Shelley v. Kraemer (1948), the Fair Housing Act, and Michigan's Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act. Under severability, these illegal clauses are severed and the remaining provisions survive. The belief that discriminatory provisions void the entire document is legally incorrect. PA 234 of 2022 provides a simple process to record a discharge removing this language.