“You Don’t Get To Make Up Your Own Rules” — Judge Gauthier Goes Viral

Añadido: 2026-05-27

[00:00:00]And uh Mr. Lasnik, you're here on behalf of the plaintiff association. Is that correct?

[00:00:04]>> That's correct. Representative.

[00:00:08]>> All right. And uh Mr. Zoo, you're representing yourself in this matter. Is that correct?

[00:00:13]>> Yes.

[00:00:13]>> Okay. Um just as a reminder to you folks, we do provide public access not only in the courtroom, but also online on uh the court's YouTube channel. And also, I've got that strange QR code behind me. There are surveys out in the hallway. We are currently uh doing a public satisfaction survey. We encourage anybody lawyer, litigant, member of the public to participate in that.

[00:00:38]Um and this case is up for a pre-trial and answer having been filed. But also then the before we get to that, the plaintiff has filed a motion for summary disposition under a court rule 2.116 C10 indicating that there's no real factual questions here and that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

[00:01:00]Mr. Lasnik, I reviewed your motion and the brief and attachments and the supplemental brief. Uh anything you want to say in support of your motion? Just generally your honor in probably repeating the motion of the or the documents that I filed with the court.

[00:01:17]Um this is a dispute in property ownership. Um there's two legitimate competing interests. One is someone to use this property to make money uh a profit and the other is for an individual to live peacefully on their property. Uh this is case is controlled by the original creator of the subdivision Mr. Coulson in ' 67 created a deed restrictions on the property and the deed restriction that is controlling is that this property be used for residential purposes.

[00:01:56]Um back in ' 67 I don't think there were Airbnbs and rentals like this. Uh so uh what exists today wasn't specifically anticipated but it was in the extent that this is a residential subdivision. It's on the straits.

[00:02:17]There's approximately not quite 70 lots uh that all people live there. They all bought their property subject to the deed restriction which allows it for residential purposes. And the issue today, and I don't think it's been denied that the defendant is um using it for Airbnb purposes, it's currently even being uh uh advertised on the internet for that purpose. Um and he has used it for that in the past. Um and the homeowners association is trying to get this court to define what can and cannot happen in this subdivision as far as short-term rentals. Um there are there's case law that and there's a lot of it out there. I was surprised at how much there says you know like when they dealing with this residential restriction um the courts have seen have basically said it deals with not the number of time you occupy but your intent to occupy meaning solely be you. So you could be there for a couple months, but as long as you're the only one that occupies it for the whole year, then it's still residential. If you change on a regular basis, then it's a commercial operation and he's charging money, so it even makes it more commercial. And a commercial has been held by the courts that uh that is not residential. That's commercial. It's acknowledged even in our zoning. And that's another little sidekick is that zoning in Shuy County has allowed uh short-term rentals throughout the c throughout the county.

[00:03:53]So that part of the zoning uh would indicate that it's okay, but the deed restrictions by the case law overrides the more stricter of the two. The stricter of the deed restrictions or the stricter of the zoning ordinance controls. In this case, the more strict one is the deed restrictions. and also was done with notice uh that short-term rentals of this nature should not be allowed. Um, you know, it it's, you know, I I can feel for Mr. Cha. Did I say that right?

[00:04:29]>> Okay. Sorry.

[00:04:31]>> Okay. I'm sorry. Um, you know, and that he wants to make money off of his property. I guess he doesn't live there anymore, but not in Holiday Simply Picture, unfortunately. and uh and I would ask the court grant an order that would um restrict the use of short-term rentals in the subdivision.

[00:04:54]Okay. All right. Mr. Zoo, you didn't file a written response, but I did review your answer that had some opinions and things to say about that.

[00:05:03]Uh any argument you want to make to me uh against the motion? Go ahead.

[00:05:08]>> Yes. Uh your honor um I'll say um I have counter argument about uh Mr. Dan um assets argument about the restriction basically by talking to my neighbors and also the president vice president uh Mr. 15 of our association there's no such a thing called deep restriction for this subdivator before I said basically initially bought this property for personal use but because of the high cost of the high interest and then um without Airbnb I would have sold the house a year ago right after I bought it because it's too expensive and before I said this Airbnb B uh business basically I my intention is to sub uh offset my sub substantial cost because of the initial removal of the trees because of the repair cost and also because of the mortgage and also because of the increased the property tax and so on. So basically I called local zoning office and also I called um title office of chi whether this is allowed or not and also I talked to uh my neighborhood and also reached out to run for and basically he stopped by my house. He didn't say no to my setup. And I didn't set up my Airbnb right after I bought it because that's not my intention. I bought my house on December 20th um 2024.

[00:07:00]I bought it that time and quickly I realized this property is so costly, so expensive. And then based on the advice from my friends uh my wife's friend friend I tried this venture basically uh because I teach at the university my summer is right I really needed to find things to do and at the end initially I thought of doing this type of thing in China but there the land is owned by the government you can't do it over there and here it's possible and before the setup. I really consulted all the local officers. The officer answered me directly, correctly, and there was no restriction for setting up.

[00:07:46]>> Yes. Yes. And Mr. Zoo, Mr. Lasnik doesn't dispute that that there's no there's no zoning violation. Okay. So there's no issue with your use of the property and the government uh and your decision to use that property or uh sounds like a very reasonable approach that you've been taking. But the legal question is that you you bought a lot in a subdivision that does have some uh protective covenants recorded in the registered deeds office. I read >> and those do include a description that no lot shall be used except for residential purposes.

[00:08:29]>> So that covers up that trumps the zoning requirements. Zoning could say you could put a gas station there, for example, and you wouldn't be able to because of this restrictive covenant. So I guess my my job today is to decide is using your property for short-term rentals consistent with or inconsistent with that restriction. No lot shall be used except for residential purposes.

[00:08:53]>> Let me let be let me be clear on this. I read this again and again upon receiving this document covenant. I would say any person with standard English like should be able to read it this clearly. This is definition is about land use and the lot use. It's not about the house use. So basically the title here is defined as land use and lot use. It's not defined as house use property use. This is clear, absolutely clear. And we can dispute I mean I can dispute this with D. No problem. And if we have to look at the subtitle the rest basically I can read it. No lot should be used except for residential purposes.

[00:09:49]That's about the building. It's not about the commercial any activities in the house. We can imagine I can teach in the do summer teaching in my house and to earn money that's commercial and I can also tell uh people that I need to make crafts or pendants in my house that's also commercial. This type of activity is not uh prohibited is not restricted because this restriction is about the initial land use and also initial lot use. And once the house is built, it's built. This house uh is still residential house. I'm not changing it. Uh I mean it's still a residential house. Basically, I still own there. Uh I still live there. I come here. uh uh at least so often, you know, like uh once a month or even more frequently than that. So basically steal my property. Uh I only use Airbnb to subsidize my cost because without that really to sell my house right away. I don't think I'm changing the nature of the uh I mean the the the the house itself. It's still a residential house.

[00:11:11]Well, sell it. I'll sell it as residential house. It's not commercial house. It's not restaurant. It's not an office. I'm not converting into an office. I'm not converting into a hotel.

[00:11:25]If I do anything like that, that's against this covenant. But I'm not doing that. And also there's no explicit language here prohibiting the use of the house for commercial related activities.

[00:11:41]There's no such language. So any restriction on the property use of the house is the violation of the our property rights because Rford Mr. Ranford doesn't didn't pay a penny for my house. it does. He filed this lawsuit against me on his personal belief. It's his personal interest. It's not the interest of the association. At the end, I'll say this lawsuit needs to be dismissed because he filed this lawsuit secretively without informing the vice president uh Mr. uh Tim Ray. Tim Ray didn't know this lawsuit and also there was no consensus coming from the the the association. This association doesn't have the rights to enforce any non-existing house rules. There's no such a rule prohibiting what and also this covenant can be read again and again by so uh it's about the initial setup of the house. It's not about the restoration of the use of the house and also I'm not changing the house to a different type. It's still residential house.

[00:13:07]>> Okay. Thank you sir. Mr. Lasnick any rebuttal argument? Just quickly on it says residential purposes not just uh so if the purpose on the property which the house is permanently attached to the property is commercial then it's in violation of this restriction uh there's no case law that I know of that provides basis for his argument. Um, that's your extension.

[00:13:36]Hang on, Mr. Mr. How court cases work then is um the person that filed the motion argues first and then you get a response and then they get a brief rebuttal because they carry the burden of proof, but it's not a it's not an open forum for cross talk and debating.

[00:13:54]Go ahead, Mr. L.

[00:13:55]>> Okay. So, no case law that supports this position uh is for residential purposes to say that you can use the house but not the land is silly because the house is permanently attached to the property and when you do a deed you pass that on uh you pass anything that's permanently attached to it. So, uh that interpretation of the residential covenants uh that restricts it to residential purpose I don't think is a valid uh argument. Um, and the fact that Mr. Reid didn't know about this lawsuit beforehand is a lot of people didn't know about it beforehand. So, I I don't see how that's significant towards this issue.

[00:14:39]That's all I have.

[00:14:40]>> Okay. Thank you. Well, the plaintiff has filed a motion for summary disposition under 2.116 C10.

[00:14:48]And I do believe there's no genuine issue of material fact here. the parties seem to agree on on sort of what the facts are that this uh that there is a land use or a a protective covenant that says land use and building type no lot shall be used except for residential purposes and um that the defendant has been uh using his lot for uh purposes of short-term rentals through Airbnb and uh he uh candidly describes that he does that because of the uh monetary benefit that he receives.

[00:15:24]Defendant first asserts that the uh that the plaintiff's uh that the plaintiff can't bring this lawsuit because somehow the plaintiff's president is acting improperly under the bylaws of the of the plaintiff association.

[00:15:41]And uh in his he's alluded to that today and in his written answer, he goes into more detail about that. Uh I don't see that as a matter that's for the court today in this litigation. This litigation is not about the internal workings of the association.

[00:15:56]The association which would have standing to bring the lawsuit has brought a lawsuit. Whether the association wishes to withdraw that lawsuit would be its own business. It wouldn't be this court's business. So, I don't think this court can penetrate into a an organization that has brought a case for me to start asking whether the organization followed its own bylaws about whether all the members approved the litigation or not. That that's a matter for this for the property association to sort out, but they do have standing to bring the action.

[00:16:32]the um restrictive covenants or deed restrictions here. They're called protective covenants. They are enforceable as a matter of contract law, but because they also limit the free use of land, they are strictly interpreted against the uh person seeking to enforce them and courts may not read them too broadly and all doubts are resolved in favor of the free use of property. So, if I were starting this on a blank slate and ask the question, are short-term uh Airbnb rentals consistent with residential use?

[00:17:11]I think that's a fascinating question and I think there could be good arguments to be made uh on both sides of that question, but I don't get to decide that issue on my own. Um I have to follow a binding case law on that. And there are a number of cases over the years that have interpreted residential use restrictions.

[00:17:32]You know, Connor v. Resort Custom Builders 459 MISH 335 in 1999.

[00:17:39]The Michigan Supreme Court held that time share ownership or interval ownership violated a restriction limiting use to residential purposes.

[00:17:49]Now, although short-term rentals are not quite the same thing as time share ownership, the reasoning of Okconor is important in that case. The Supreme Court noted that to be a residence, it has to have some measure of permanence, such as someone keeping their belongings there while they are absent. because a weekly time share was too temporary to be a residential use and the people using it uh do not have any right to be present or store items beyond their one week of time share ownership. The Supreme Court held that that time share did violate the restricted covenant.

[00:18:28]And from that reasoning, short-term rentals such as through an Airbnb would also tend to not be a residential use.

[00:18:36]In fact, an Airbnb guest would typically have less interest or concern for the premises than would a time share owner.

[00:18:45]But that wasn't a but it wasn't a uh it wasn't it wasn't a short-term rental case.

[00:18:53]Then we have eager v. Peasley in 2017 court of appeals 322 mishap 174 and it held that short-term rentals violated a use restriction requiring quote private occupancy only unquote and prohibiting quote commercial use.

[00:19:13]Uh but eager isn't directly on point though because as recognized by the Supreme Court in Tyrion Bwit in 2002, a covenant barring any commercial or business enterprise is broader in scope than a covenant permitting only residential uses.

[00:19:32]So here the covenant at issue does not prohibit commercial use uh expressly. So the fact that the defendant receives money for the short-term rentals is not itself dispositive.

[00:19:44]But the covenant here restricts to residential purposes. So the question unanswered totally by Okconor and Eager is whether short-term rentals violate uh that type of residential use restriction.

[00:19:59]Well, there was a case in 2023 where the Michigan Supreme or the Michigan Court of Appeals did answer that question. In the case of Aldrich v. Sugar Sugar Springs Property Association.

[00:20:11]In that case, the restrictive covenant said, quote, "All lots in the development shall be used for residential purposes only." Thus, the restriction in Aldrich was essentially the same as the one at issue in our case.

[00:20:27]And in Aldrich, the Court of Appeals held that short-term rentals of any term less than six months did violate that use restriction. And the Court of Appeals explicitly rejected the homeowner's attempt to distinguish the Okconor and Eager cases, holding instead that the legal reasoning of those cases meant that short-term rentals are not allowed where there's a valid restriction to residential purposes. Aldrich is quite clearly on point and it is binding on this court.

[00:20:59]So this court, Mr. Zoo, really has no no discretion or decision to make. I am bound by oath and law to follow binding precedent of the courts above me and Aldrich dictates the result that the plaintiff association is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Uh and this would include the count Mr. Lasnik for declaratory relief as well as the count for injunctive relief because it's long been the case that restrictive covenants may be enforced by injunction there being generally no adequate remedy at law. So therefore the plaintiff's motion for summary disposition under C10 is granted as to declaratory and injunctive relief and Mr. Lazdik you may submit a judgment under the 7-day notice of presentment.

[00:21:46]Thank you.

[00:21:46]>> All right. Thank you.

[00:21:51]So, so you may not do the short-term rentals >> and what's the consequence? Uh, what's the time frame? Um, allow.

[00:22:00]>> So, the process, Mr. Lasnik will have to prepare a proposed judgment. He sends a copy to you and to the court. You have seven days to object to the form of the judgment. And that is only if his judgment does not fairly capture what my ruling was. It's not a way for you to object to what the ruling was. And then we get a written judgment entered. Then there's a period of time that you can file an appeal to the Michigan Court of Appeals. If you wish to do so, you may certainly do so to have them review my decision to see if it's legally correct.

[00:22:34]Okay.

[00:22:36]But that means my Airbnb can still go as it is until the appeal court against me.

[00:22:47]>> Well, those are questions that I can't really answer today. There's those would be questions about a stay.

[00:22:53]What I'll tell you today is I am ruling as a matter of law that that the Airbnbs are not uh that they do violate the restrictions. As of right this moment in time, there is no written piece of paper court injunction against you for that.

[00:23:07]>> Okay?

[00:23:07]>> Once that paper does issue, uh, then that would be binding. There are some court rules about when that injunction takes effect >> and what you would have to do to seek a stay of the injunction. So, I'd refer you to the Michigan court rules, uh, or you can consult with an attorney if you wish. There's also the law library has a legal help center.

[00:23:29]You can review it down there. Um, so there are some some wrinkles to that, but generally once that injunction is signed, you're gonna have to follow it.

[00:23:37]>> Okay. Anyway, I will this decision.

[00:23:40]>> Yeah, you certainly >> and I'm uh basically I'm not liable for any court face whatsoever, right?

[00:23:49]>> Yeah. In the American system, both sides pay their own way. Yeah. With with some rare exceptions. And Mr. Lasnick has not asked me to trigger those exceptions.

[00:23:58]>> Sounds good.

[00:23:58]>> Okay. Yeah. All right. You have a good day, sir.

[00:24:07]>> We are on the record in the 53rd Circuit Court for the County of Shabboan.

[00:24:12]We are providing public access on our civil docket both in the courtroom and also online. Also, I've got a fake background behind me with a QR code that lets you know that we are in the middle of our um by annual public satisfaction survey. Uh, so you can use that QR code to access that. There are also written forms in the hallway and if somebody wants to participate through the QR code and can't manage to access that code from the device that they're on, which I could never manage to do myself, just reach out to the circuit court office and we'd be happy to get that uh form to you. So we have a status conference at the court scheduled in Low Review, Michigan Unemployment Insurance Agency.

[00:24:53]It's a administrative appeal. It's file 26-9188 AE and Mr. Lowry is in the courtroom representing himself as the appellent.

[00:25:02]Good afternoon, sir.

[00:25:04]>> And uh go ahead and place your appearance on the record, Miss Brin.

[00:25:08]>> Good afternoon, your honor. Assistant Attorney General Tara Brin for the unemployment insurance agency.

[00:25:14]>> Okay. So, I had entered an order back in March directing the parties how to proceed because I noticed on review that I had given Mr. Lowry a a bit of bad advice or bad direction and told him that it was his job to get the record.

[00:25:29]Uh which it would be in most appeals, but on uh review that was the job of the unemployment insurance uh commission or agency. So I entered an order of that effect. We didn't see it filed, so we'd set this status conference for today. I will indicate that on today's date, we did in fact receive the certified record.

[00:25:49]>> Great. Uh so that addresses the the question that I had about that for the status conference and so Mr. Lowry what that means for this appeal I am going to direct the clerk to on today's date sign the notice to the parties that the record has been so filed and that means that now we can trigger the briefing deadlines. So Mr. Lowry, that notice being signed by the clerk on today's date, your brief on appeal, explain to me why you believe that I should reverse the action of the agency, would be due not later than June 1st.

[00:26:29]June 1st is your deadline for your appeal. And then once you file your brief, the agency has 21 days to file a response brief. After they file their brief, you have 14 days to file any reply that you wish. And then at that point, the case comes to me to review the briefs and see if there's a need to schedule it for oral argument or not.

[00:26:50]Uh, and then to proceed on the merits of the appeal. Do you have any questions for me, Mr. Lowry, about that process for the appeal?

[00:26:58]>> Well, I didn't quite expect a June 1st date for the brief. Uh, I was kind of waiting for the interrogatories, but doesn't look like anybody wants to answer the questions. Well, that's a that's a separate matter that I'll I wanted to address since we're here anyway. Um, Mr. Lowry, you keep filing various pleadings and discovery requests and other miscellaneous pleadings. And I want to tell you, everybody from the defendant to me are pretty much ignoring those. And here's why. This is an appeal. In an appeal, you filed a claim of appeal. In an appeal, here's what I get to do. Review this record and this record only. My appellet jurisdiction is limited to this is the record. Then you explain to me why they did something wrong. They explain to me why they didn't. And then I make a ruling.

[00:27:50]There's no discovery in an appeal.

[00:27:52]There's no new evidence in an appeal.

[00:27:54]You are not entitled to submit interrogatories to anybody. When you do, they could just object to them or not answer them. Heck, they could throw them in the trash. As far as I'm concerned, it's an appeal. There's no discovery in an appeal. An appeal is limited to the briefs and you filed an appeal. So, we are following the appeal rules. This is not a freewheeling forum for you to bring any complaint you want in the universe against these folks. This is an appeal from an agency action. We're going to follow the rules for that appeal. Do you have any questions for me about that?

[00:28:28]Well, what I've read u some of that I can understand only in this case my um my request is for fraud and in the reading of the act that's excluded from non interrogatories and I had mentioned that before but as you said they just ignored it. Well, because I'm looking at I don't know what act are you referring to?

[00:28:59]>> The Michigan Umployment Compensation Act.

[00:29:02]>> Okay. Well, that's an argument you may have on appeal that the agency prevented you from submitting evidence of fraud.

[00:29:10]Right. But the appeal to me is not a case in front of the agency. It's an appeal to the circuit court from an agency action. My jurisdiction is fairly limited. It's to determine whether the agency made a correct decision or not.

[00:29:25]This is not a lawsuit. This is an appeal. So, there's no discovery in the circuit court on this appeal.

[00:29:32]And, you know, the defendant, frankly, has just been kind of not responding or or objecting to your requests. They haven't asked for any sanctions or anything, but they they could because it's it's frankly it's frivolous for you to file those things. You can represent yourself if you want, but you don't get to make up your own rules. We have to follow the appeal rules. So if you're representing yourself, got to follow those appeal rules. And here's the bottom line. All the other stuff you're filing doesn't matter. The appeal record has been filed. Now you have 28 days, so till June 1st to file your brief. Then they file their brief. You can file a reply if you want. And then I decide the case with or without oral argument as I see fit.

[00:30:16]>> 28 days from today's date.

[00:30:18]>> Yes, sir. Yes, sir. And you're saying it's June 1st and it's May 17th.

[00:30:24]>> Oh, you know what? Did I mis I must have miscalculated that. You're right. You are right. May 18th.

[00:30:32]Oh, yeah. I just I'm sorry. I just calculated 14th. You're right. You're right. 28 days of June 15th.

[00:30:38]Yes, June 15th.

[00:30:43]My apologies, sir. Yes. Sometimes I see the date wrong. I can understand them wanting to lean to the appeal, but this is just the stepping stone from the beginning and everything move forward is always an appeal and this is going before the circuit court not the appellet court and I read where the circuit court I mean the appellet court has limitations.

[00:31:08]>> Well, I am an appellet court in this case because you filed a claim of appeal. My my I'm not the agency in an agency action then the circuit court jurisdiction is an appeal from that action.

[00:31:21]>> Well, if you don't have complete files furnished by the court by the uh agency, how can you make a decision?

[00:31:31]>> That's what the certified record is.

[00:31:32]They submitted the certified record today's date. So, you should get a copy of that.

[00:31:36]>> And they only put one one area in it.

[00:31:39]And this has been going on since 2021.

[00:31:43]>> I want to tell you, Mr. Lowry, I have to follow the rules. And whether you think I should ignore the rules or come up with new rules, >> I'm not asking you to ignore the rules.

[00:31:51]>> I got to follow the rules. And the rules are that's my record. You both you all file your briefs and then I decide the case. I am sitting in appellet jurisdiction in this case. I am an appellet court of the agency action. So that that that's how I have to proceed.

[00:32:07]If you want to file a lawsuit against the unemployment insurance agency or the schools, that's an entirely different action. And I can't give you any advice about whether you have a valid lawsuit that you could file against them and this court or another court or federal court. I have no idea. You know, you can take whatever remedies you think you have at law. What you have filed in this case is an appeal. And so I'm going to follow those rules.

[00:32:32]>> So I'm stuck with what they control coming into this court. you are stuck with the record on appeal. I don't know.

[00:32:39]I don't understand the nature of your question. If you think that they have filed a record that is incomplete, you can file a motion in front of me saying that the record is somehow wrong or incomplete, but I'd encourage you to review the appeal appeal court rules to see how to do that. A lot of the stuff you've been filing is if this is just some standalone lawsuit, which it is not.

[00:33:00]Okay.

[00:33:01]Any other questions for you, Mr. Lowry?

[00:33:04]Well, this case case started with civil rights violation and somehow everybody has been able to dodge that issue up to date and I can't see why I would come to a courthouse and be ignored for that for that reason. And they it's gone all the way through. No one, yourself included, addressed the civil rights action.

[00:33:34]When I was h when I started this, we were threatened, the bus drivers were threatened that they could could not draw unemployment and they would fight it. The following summer, the school allowed our female bus driver to draw unemployment.

[00:33:53]And that has never been addressed by this court, by the attorneys, or by the agency. They've all ignored it.

[00:34:06]>> Mr. Mr. Lowry, all I can tell you is I my jurisdiction is triggered when people file cases. You filed a case and it was captioned a claim of appeal and you appealed from the agency decision and you went through the appeal the circuit court and you say it's a fraudulent denial.

[00:34:27]Well, so I have my appellet jurisdiction. A lot of the stuff you're talking about, if you think you have a lawsuit against the schools for some civil rights violation, you pursue whatever remedies you think you have. that up. It's not against the school. It's against the system.

[00:34:46]>> Well, >> you know, just because I'm a male, we don't have a right in the courtroom or in the agencies.

[00:34:52]>> You have the same right in my courtroom as anybody of any gender, Mr. Lowry. And I'm going to exercise my authority under the appeal rules and I'm going to apply those rules to your case. So, I've explained to you my jurisdiction in this case is appellet jurisdiction based on what you have filed. So, I'm not going to get into a long debate with you about that. That that's true. If I did anything else, I would be breaking the law. So, the you've got your appeal deadline and your briefing deadline and encourage you to follow that. Miss Bin, anything further on behalf of the appelli?

[00:35:26]>> No, thank you, your honor.

[00:35:29]>> All right. Thank you. Um, so as soon as we get all the briefs, I'll review them and likely schedule it for oral argument. Um, everybody have a good day.

[00:35:36]Thank you to Yana.