Blanchard Valley Health Sys. v. Canterbury Holdings, Inc.
2012 Ohio 5134
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- BVHS and Condominium Association sue Canterbury for purported Use Restriction violations at Unit 1 of Physicians Plus Urgent Care Center Condominium.
- Canterbury purchased Unit 1 in Feb 2006 with Use Restrictions limiting services and restricting transfers to competitors.
- An August 2006 Purchase Agreement added Additional Premises to Unit 1, with similar Use Restrictions; Condominium Declaration incorporated these instruments.
- Canterbury began a lab services arrangement with Lima Pathology, a BVHS competitor, allegedly violating Use Restrictions.
- Arbitration clause Article XXII, §2 of the Condominium Declaration provides that unresolved disputes must be submitted to arbitration; court stayed non-arbitrable proceedings pending arbitration.
- Trial court found the dispute falls within the arbitration clause and that only the Condominium Association, not BVHS, had standing to enforce arbitration; it stayed the action pending arbitration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the dispute involve title or possession of real estate exempt from arbitration under R.C. 2711.01(B)(1)? | BVHS argues the issue concerns use restrictions, not title/possession. | Canterbury argues the issue turns on title/possession and is exempt. | No; dispute is about use restrictions, not title/possession; arbitrable. |
| Are there procedural prerequisites to arbitration that preclude referring the matter to arbitration? | Appellees argue prerequisites are for arbitrator; dispute is arbitrable. | Arbitration clause requires meeting conditions precedent before arbitration. | Procedural prerequisites are for the arbitrator; arbitration properly compelled. |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Aetna Fin. Co., 83 Ohio St.3d 464 (1998) (presumption favoring arbitration in scope disputes)
- Barhorst, Inc. v. Hanson Pipe & Prods. Ohio, Inc., 2006-Ohio-6858 (3d Dist.) (review of stay orders in arbitration matters; de novo review on legal questions)
- Murtha v. Ravines of McNaughton Condominium Assn., 2010-Ohio-1325 (10th Dist.) (dispute over use restrictions not ownership; arbitration appropriate)
- Kedzior v. CDC Dev. Corp., 123 Ohio App.3d 301 (8th Dist.) (title/possession exception not applicable where dispute is contract interpretation)
- Kent Partners v. Crossings at Golden Pond-Portage Cty., L.L.C., 2011-Ohio-2842 (11th Dist.) (real estate title/possession exception not applicable to all property disputes)