Cumberland Trail Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. Bush
2011 Ohio 6041
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- In 2004, Bushs bought Lot 199 in Cumberland Trail, subject to a 1998 declaration of covenants recorded in Licking County.
- The 1998 declaration did not create a homeowners association or impose assessments.
- In 2007, an amendment purported to create an HOA and impose assessments; appellants claimed they were not parties to the amendment.
- The Association billed appellants for reserve fees and dues (2008, 2009, 2010) and filed suit for unpaid amounts.
- The trial court held the association had legitimacy and could assess dues; the court awarded $1,128.29 in dues and $376.10 in attorney fees.
- On appeal, the court held that the 2007 amendment improperly changed the covenants before January 1, 2037 and was unenforceable against the appellants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the 2007 amendment enforceable against Bushs to create an HOA and impose dues? | Association argues the amendment validly changed covenants. | Bushs contend amendment was ineffective or unauthorized and added new obligations. | Amendment unenforceable; changes not permitted before 2037. |
| Does Article II(A) permit owner-initiated changes prior to 2037 under the last-antecedent rule? | Association relies on amendment to support assessments. | Bushs rely on last-antecedent rule to restrict changes before 2037. | Article II(A) does not permit pre-2037 changes; trial court erred. |
| Did the amendment add new obligations rather than simply amend language? | Association asserts clear amendment power. | Bushs argue it added new obligations beyond amendment. | Amendment addition of new obligations is unenforceable. |
Key Cases Cited
- McBride v. Behrman, 272 N.E.2d 181 (Ohio Misc. 1971) (contract-deed interpretation rules apply to covenants)
- Martin v. Lake Mohawk Property Owner's Ass'n., 2005-Ohio-7062 (Ohio 2005) (de novo review of contractual language in restrictive covenants)
- Long Beach Assn., Inc. v. Jones, 697 N.E.2d 208 (Ohio 1998) (statutory/contract interpretation in property restrictions)
- Witte v. Protek Ltd., 2010-Ohio-1193 (Ohio 2010) (de novo interpretation of contract language on appeal)
- Houk v. Ross, 63 O.O.2d 119, 296 N.E.2d 266 (Ohio 1973) (covenant interpretation favoring free use of land)
- Farrell v. Deuble, 2008-Ohio-1124 (Ohio App.3d 2008) (covenants and use restrictions construed against restrictions)
- Bove v. Geibel, 159 N.E.2d 425 (Ohio 1959) (strict construction against limitations on land use)
- Driscoll v. Austintown Assoc., 276 N.E.2d 263 (Ohio 1975) (restrictions on real estate construed cautiously)