New Precedent on Condo Association Liability to Short-Term Renters

On July 13, 2026, the Michigan Court of Appeals held in Letvin v The Village at Grand Traverse Commons Condo Ass’n that short-term renters of a condo unit are no longer “licensees” of the condo association, but instead are now “invitees,” and associations now owe them a higher standard of care regarding premises liability.

In three short years our appellate courts have significantly moved the goalposts.  Whether a condition was open and obvious became a jury question, condo owners became invitees of their own associations, and now short-term renters of condos have gone from licensees to invitees of associations.

Condo associations and condo management companies should seek the advice of legal counsel to explore their options, which may include: (1) verifying with their insurance carriers that their coverage is appropriate; (2) amending their bylaws to prohibit condo owners from renting-out their units; or (3) requiring condo owners who rent out their units to obtain separate insurance coverage for the common areas.

Premises liability actions require proof of duty, breach, causation, and harm, and the duty owed depends on a visitor’s status.  Kandil-Elsayed v F&E Oil, Inc, 512 Mich 95, 110-111; 1 NW3d 44 (2023).  There are “three common-law categories for persons who enter upon the land or premises of another: (1) trespasser, (2) licensee, or (3) invitee.”  Stitt v Holland Abundant Life Fellowship, 462 Mich 591, 597; 614 NW2d 88 (2000).  An “invitee” is “a person who enters upon the land of another upon an invitation which carries with it an implied representation, assurance, or understanding that reasonable care has been used to prepare the premises, and make it safe for the invitee’s reception.”  Id. at 596-597 (quotation marks and citation omitted, alterations incorporated).  Generally, “persons entering upon the property of another for business purposes” are invitees and are “entitled to the highest level of protection under premises liability law.”  Id. at 597.

A claim that the invitor “breached the duty to exercise reasonable care to protect invitees from unreasonable risks of harm” is usually based on a “failure to warn, negligent maintenance, or defective physical structure.”  Bertrand v Alan Ford, Inc, 449 Mich 606, 610; 537 NW2d 185 (1995).  “As part of the breach inquiry, the fact-finder may consider, among other things, whether the condition was open and obvious and whether, despite its open and obvious nature, the land possessor should have anticipated harm to the invitee,” which in 2023 became a question of fact for the jury to determine comparative fault between the invitee and the property owner.  Kandil-Elsayed, 512 Mich at 146, 148.

In 2024, “a guest of a condominium owner [was] a licensee of the condominium complex while in common areas” “because the person is on the condominium complex’s property, with permission, for a limited purpose,” and a “landowner owes a licensee a duty only to warn… of any hidden dangers the owner knows or has reason to know of, if the licensee does not know or have reason to know of the dangers involved.”  Gabrielson v Woods Condo Ass’n, Inc, 349 Mich App 478, 498; 28 NW3d 747 (2024) (quotation marks and citations omitted).  A renter of a condo unit is an invitee of the condo owner, but was only a licensee of the condo association.  Id. at 504-506.  The Court in Gabrielson further noted that a condo owner who is a co-owner of the condo association cannot “create an invitee relationship between an association and a renter” when “the co-owner is not owed that duty in the first place” because “a co-owner cannot be an invitee or a licensee of” their association.  Id. at 506, citing Francescutti v Fox Chase Condo Ass’n, 312 Mich App 640; 886 NW2d 891 (2015).

Later in 2024 our Supreme Court held that where a condo association assumes the duty to maintain common areas, it assumes control over those areas, and, likening it to a landlord-tenant relationship, a condo owner is an invitee of the association because the condo owner’s ability to enjoy the common areas is contingent on payment of the association’s dues, focusing on the commercial relationship between the two.  Janini v London Townhouses Condo Ass’n, 514 Mich 86, 100-103; 22 NW3d 24 (2024).  The Court overruled Francescutti in that regard, but did not address the remainder of Gabrielson’s holding that renters confer no economic benefit upon the condo association, and are licensees of the association.

Now our Court of Appeals has issued Letvin in which Letvin and his wife rented a condo through Airbnb during winter, noticed the snow and ice on the parking lot, and Letvin nonetheless slipped, fell, and broke his arm while attempting to get to an Uber ride after an afternoon of winery touring.  Letvin v The Village at Grand Traverse Commons Condo Ass’n, ___ Mich App ___; ___ NW3d ___ (2026) (Docket No. 376558); slip op at 2.  Letvin asserted he was an invitee of the condo association, while the association asserted that Letvin was merely a licensee.  Id. at ___; slip op at 3.  The Court held that because Gabrielson was based upon Francescutti—which our Supreme Court overruled in Janini—then therefore Gabrielson must also be held as precedentially infirm and considered Gabrielson abrogated.  Letvin, ___ Mich App at ___; slip op at 5-6.

The Court reasoned that because Janini held that a condo owner and condo association have a landlord-tenant relationship, then that same relationship must be applied between the renter of a condo and an association, despite a lack of “a direct business relationship” between them.  Id. at ___; slip op at 6.  Likening it to the holding in Stanley v Town Square Coop, 203 Mich App 143; 512 NW2d 51 (1993) (an invited guest of a co-owner is an invitee of the cooperative association, just as a guest of a tenant is an invitee of a landlord), the Court held that Gabrielson conflicted with both Janini and Stanley.

However, the Court did not address that Letvin was not a guest of the condo owner in the same manner as in Stanley, and the Court disregarded that Janini’s holding was limited to the relationship between a co-owner and association, leaving much of Gabrielson undisturbed.  Letvin entered into a commercial relationship with the condo owner, but offered no commercial benefit to the association.  Letvin was not a social guest of the condo owner.  The Court essentially threw Gabrielson out with the bath water and stretched Stanley because of Janini’s comparison to a landlord-tenant arrangement.  The Court also did not address whether renting a condo unit on Airbnb was even permitted by the association’s bylaws.

While we wait to see whether Letvin is appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court, condo associations should not wait to see what happens because one thing is clear: precedent regarding premises liability is changing, and it is happening quickly.