CLE Venture Fund, L.P. v. Coventry Partners, L.L.C.
2025 Ohio 2451
Ohio Ct. App.2025Background
- Coventry Courts LLC, Coventry Court LLC, and Crigler (Appellants) borrowed $1.6 million from CLE Venture Fund, L.P. (Appellee) in 2015, secured by real estate and guarantees.
- Following extensions, Appellants defaulted; a forbearance and deed-in-lieu of foreclosure agreement stipulated debt survival post-transfer and an escrowed deed to be delivered if default continued.
- Appellee recorded the deed in 2018 after Appellants' default, later sold the property in 2021, and sought a deficiency judgment for remaining debt.
- Trial court granted summary judgment on liability but set a trial on the retrospective value of the property as of 2018, to be credited toward Appellants' debt.
- Competing expert testimony was presented on valuation; the court ultimately adopted Appellee’s expert’s retrospective value of $1,310,000, finding Appellants liable for the deficiency.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Appellee) | Defendant's Argument (Appellants) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of expert who did not author report | Vodinelic collaborated and supervised report preparation; no objection to his testimony at trial | Vodinelic did not author report, so testimony not valid under Evid.R. 703 | Testimony admissible; Vodinelic's collaborative role sufficient |
| Expert did not view the property | Sales comparison approach acceptable; onsite visit not necessary given facts of appraisal | Expert did not physically view property, undermining credibility | Court accepted expert's methodology for this property type |
| Expert unaware HUD restriction later lifted | Value must reflect restriction as of 2018; restriction presumed in place at valuation date | Expert’s opinion flawed because he didn’t know restriction had been lifted in 2021 | 2021 restriction lifting irrelevant to 2018 value; no reversible error |
| Reliance on expert who did not prepare the report | Collaborative preparation meets evidentiary requirements; full trial court discretion | Only report author should testify; improper reliance on testimony | No reversible error; no authority bars collaborative appraisal testimony |
Key Cases Cited
- Notestine Manor, Inc. v. Logan Cty. Bd. of Revision, 152 Ohio St.3d 439 (properties encumbered by HUD restrictions must be valued accordingly)
- Columbus City Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 151 Ohio St.3d 12 (affirming importance of HUD and governmental restrictions in property tax appraisal)
- Woda Ivy Glen Ltd. Partnership v. Fayette Cty. Bd. of Revision, 121 Ohio St.3d 175 (valuation of low-income housing must account for relevant restrictions)