Action seeking foreclosure & monetary damages; Enforcement of delinquent assessments under condo bylaws; Lay witness opinion testimony; MRE 701; Expert testimony; MRE 702; Hearsay; Business record exception; MRE 803(6); Trustworthiness; Solomon v Shuell; Relevance; MRE 401; Credibility; MRE 608; Unclean hands; New Prod Corp v Harbor Shores BHBT Land Dev, LLC; Attorney fees; MCL 600.2591; Conversion; Aroma Wines & Equip, Inc v Columbian Distrib Servs, Inc; Treble damages; MCL 600.2919a(1)(a)

The court held that the trial court did not err (1) by entering a judgment of no cause of action in plaintiff-condo association’s lawsuit seeking foreclosure and monetary damages against defendants-condo owners, or (2) by finding plaintiff had unclean hands. It also held that the trial court did not err by finding neither party was entitled to attorney fees, but did err by ordering plaintiff’s counsel to refund payments to defendants. Plaintiff sued defendants seeking foreclosure and monetary damages on the basis of unpaid monthly assessments, unpaid additional assessments, legal fees and costs, and interest for their two condos. The trial court entered a judgment of no cause of action and ordered plaintiff’s counsel to refund payments to defendants. It denied defendants’ request for treble damages and sanctions. On appeal, the court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the trial court’s verdict was contrary to the evidence, including the unambiguous language of the condo bylaws. It found that the trial court did not misapply the testimony of one witness or erroneously rely on another witness or the spreadsheet she compiled comparing plaintiff’s ledgers with defendants’ bank records. In addition, “the trial court was not required to accept the veracity of [the] ledgers because they were admissible under MRE 803(6).” Further, evidence of defendants’ timely payment history with another condo association was not irrelevant, and the trial court “properly assessed the credibility of the witnesses before it in finding whether defendants made timely payments and whether” plaintiff’s subsidiary’s records were untrustworthy. “[T]he evidence relied on by the trial court supported [its] ultimate decision, and the record” did not establish that it made a mistake. The court also found “no error in the trial court’s implicit holding that plaintiff” had unclean hands. “Plaintiff allowed defendants’ late fees and delinquency to increase for nine years without acting or notifying” them. And when it “finally acted, by seeking the most drastic remedy of foreclosure, defendants were disadvantaged by the extent of their delinquency and the difficulty of producing evidence of their payment history.” The court next rejected plaintiff’s contention that the trial court erred by finding the bylaws did not allow it to recover attorney fees and costs. But it agreed with its argument that the trial court erred by ordering its counsel to refund payments to defendants. It noted plaintiff’s “contractual right to collect attorney fees for pretrial proceedings was not triggered.” However, plaintiff’s counsel was not a party to this action and defendants failed to prove she received the funds. Finally, the trial court “did not err in denying defendants’ request for sanctions.” Reversed and remanded as to the payment refund order but affirmed in all other respects.