Christopher Michael Homes, L.L.C. v. Treillage Residence Owners' Assn., Inc.
2014 Ohio 4754
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- CMH purchased three Treillage bubble lots in 2008 at auction; ownership separated building area from common elements.
- Declaration imposes assessments on each CMH lot for common expenses and maintenance of communal areas; CMH paid initially but withheld after disputes over back-lot maintenance.
- Two CMH lots are in the back; one lot is at the front and highly visible; back lots became overgrown while the front lot was maintained by Treillage.
- CMH stopped paying assessments due to dissatisfaction with back-lot maintenance; Treillage filed liens in 2010 for unpaid assessments.
- CMH asserted slander of title, due process violations, unjust enrichment, and sought declaratory relief; Treillage sought foreclosure on CMH’s lots; trial court granted partial summary judgment and Treillage attorney fees; bench trial resulted in rulings favoring Treillage; CMH appeals.
- Court affirmed the trial court’s rulings, including foreclosure and the dismissal of CMH’s unjust enrichment and declaratory judgment claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment on slander of title and due process was proper | CMH contends withholdings tied to maintenance disputes create valid defenses | Treillage asserts covenants require payment regardless of maintenance issues | Summary judgment proper; withholdings not permitted under Declaration |
| Whether reconsideration of summary judgment was properly denied | CMH sought reconsideration of the summary judgment ruling | Treillage opposed reconsideration | Reconsideration denial affirmed; no error identified |
| Whether unjust enrichment and declaratory judgment claims were precluded | CMH argues nonperformance breached implied obligations | Declaration governs contract; unjust enrichment not viable | Precluded; contract governs; unjust enrichment not viable for CMH |
| Whether Treillage had a duty to maintain CMH’s lots | CMH claims Treillage must maintain back lots as a common element | Declaration reserves maintenance to Association’s discretion; no duty to CMH’s back lots | No duty; lots remain CMH’s property until they become common elements; Treillage not obligated to maintain CMH’s lots |
Key Cases Cited
- Foster Wheeler Enviresponse, Inc. v. Franklin Cty. Convention Facilities Auth., 78 Ohio St.3d 353 (1997) (contract interpretation; clear and unambiguous terms governed by plain language)
- Quadtek, Inc. v. Foister, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2004-09-112, 2005-Ohio-4191 (Ohio 2005) (unjust enrichment barred when express contract governs)
- O'Bannon Meadows Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. O'Bannon Properties, L.L.C., 2013-Ohio-2395 (Ohio) (absence of fraud; Declaration as controlling contract)