NORTHPORT CONDOMINIUM MARINA V KENNETH PINDER
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
NORTHPORT CONDOMINIUM
MARINA ASSOCIATION,
UNPUBLISHED
March 21, 1997
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 188971
Arenac Circuit Court
LC No. 93-004308-CH
KENNETH PINDER and JO RAE PINDER,
Defendants-Appellants.
Before: Fitzgerald, P.J., and MacKenzie and A.P. Hathaway*, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendants appeal as of right from a judgment of foreclosure and an order for the sale of
defendants’ property should defendants not pay plaintiff $5,318 plus late fees, delinquent charges, and
attorney’s fees by September 10, 1995. We affirm.
Plaintiff is a non-profit condominium association that collects fees to maintain the docks in the
association. Defendants own twenty-three docks. Plaintiff placed a statutory lien on defendants’
property and then filed the present suit to foreclose on the property for the unpaid association fees and
late fees. Defendants paid the association fees but claimed that they should not be required to pay the
late fees because they were penalties, as opposed to liquidated damages.
Defendants first argue that plaintiff's motion for summary disposition pursuant to MCR
2.116(C)(10) was defective because (1) the only documentary evidence presented in support of the
motion was an affidavit by plaintiff's attorney that was not based on personal knowledge, and (2) the
documents referenced in the affidavit were not attached, in violation of MCR 2.119(B)(1). Because
defendants failed to challenge the validity of the affidavit below, we decline to review this issue on
appeal. Eastway & Blevins Agency v Citizens Ins Co of America, 206 Mich App 299, 303; 520
NW2d 640 (1994).
* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-1
Defendants next argue that, procedurally, the grant of summary disposition was improper
pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(9) because defendants properly alleged the affirmative defense that the late
fees were penalties. This argument is intertwined with the merits of the issue of whether the late fees
were liquidated damages or penalties. Because we find as a matter of law that the late fees were
liquidated damages, we do not reverse based on this issue.
In order for the late fees to be liquidated damages, the damages must be uncertain and the late
fees must closely approximate the damages. E F Solomon v Dep’t of State Highways &
Transportation, 131 Mich App 479, 483-484; 345 NW2d 717 (1984). Defendants argue that
plaintiff's damages are ascertainable in that they should be calculated according to what plaintiff would
have earned had it invested the money. Because plaintiff is not in the business of investing money for
profit and is in fact a non-profit organization, defendants’ method of calculating plaintiff's damages is
inappropriate. This Court finds that plaintiff's damages are unascertainable because, unlike lost profits
or foregone opportunities, it is difficult to ascertain how much plaintiff is damaged by not having the
assessed payments available for use when they are due. Moreover, a $10 a month late fee is a
reasonable assessment of how much it would cost plaintiff administratively for the inconvenience of the
late payment and for taking steps to enforce the payment, such as sending overdue bills and extra
bookkeeping. We therefore hold that the late fees were not penalties but rather, that they were
liquidated damages.
Finally, defendants argue that the late fees are usurious. We disagree. The usury statute, MCL
438.31; MSA 19.15(1), which establishes the legal interest rate that may be charged, is not applicable
to a liquidated damages clause. Interest is “a charge for the loan or forbearance of money.” Balch v
Detroit Trust Co, 312 Mich 146, 152; 20 NW2d 138 (1945). A liquidated damages clause, if
legitimate, is not a charge for the loan or forbearance of money, but rather is a charge to cover actual
expenses engendered by a breach of contract.
Affirmed.
/s/ E. Thomas Fitzgerald
/s/ Barbara B. MacKenzie
/s/ Amy P. Hathaway
-2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.