Foxfire Village Condominium Unit Owners' Assn. v. Meyer, 2014 Ohio 3339

Background

Foxfire Village Condominium Unit Owners' Association sued Mary Meyer for unpaid condominium assessments and filed a lien; it sought judgment for unpaid dues, interest, costs, and foreclosure.
Meyer, acting pro se, answered and filed a lengthy "complaint" later treated as a counterclaim alleging she timely paid but Foxfire failed to cash checks, improperly fined owners, denied access to amenities, and failed to provide itemized accounting or intact account records.
Foxfire moved for summary judgment on its claims and against Meyer’s counterclaims, submitting affidavits from its CFO showing Meyer's payment history and that she owed roughly $9,785.
Meyer filed a memorandum contra and an affidavit that attempted to incorporate lengthy pleadings and 45 pages of attachments; she later sought more discovery (characterized as a Civ.R. 56(F) request) to subpoena proof of mailed payments.
The trial court denied Meyer’s discovery request, excluded or found inadequate her affidavit/attachments, granted Foxfire summary judgment on its claims and on Meyer’s counterclaims, and entered a foreclosure decree.
On appeal Meyer raised three assignments: (1) error granting summary judgment to Foxfire, (2) error denying her request for further discovery (Civ.R.56(F)), and (3) error granting summary judgment rejecting her counterclaims. The appellate court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Foxfire)	Defendant's Argument (Meyer)	Held
1) Denial of further discovery/Civ.R.56(F)	Discovery cutoff had passed; Meyer failed to provide affidavit or particularized reasons; court may deem motion submitted	Meyer argued she needed subpoenas/proof of mailed checks and Foxfire resisted discovery, so continuance was necessary	Affirmed: denial not abuse of discretion because Meyer filed late, provided no affidavit or particularized facts, and did not seek delay of ruling
2) Exclusion of Meyer’s affidavit and attachments as summary-judgment evidence	Meyer’s affidavit failed Civ.R.56(E) requirements; many attachments inadmissible and pleadings mixed fact/argument	Meyer contended she properly incorporated facts by reference (citing Corrigan) and attachments raised factual disputes (checks not cashed)	Affirmed: trial court acted within discretion to exclude/incorporate pleadings and unsworn or non–personal-knowledge material; exclusion not reversible or was harmless
3) Grant of summary judgment on Foxfire’s claims for unpaid assessments	Foxfire produced admissible CFO affidavits and payment history showing large unpaid balance and that received funds were applied	Meyer argued genuine dispute existed because she mailed checks and Foxfire created the debt by failing to cash them	Affirmed: Foxfire met initial burden; Meyer failed to produce admissible specific facts showing a genuine issue of material fact
4) Grant of summary judgment on Meyer’s counterclaims (breach of contract; R.C. 5311.091(A))	Counterclaims unsupported by admissible evidence; res judicata and no proof of statutory violation	Meyer argued refusal to accept payments constituted breach and that her account pages were blank, violating inspection rights	Affirmed: Meyer failed to present admissible evidence; statutory argument improperly raised in reply and otherwise unsupported

Key Cases Cited

Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (defines abuse of discretion standard)
New Destiny Treatment Ctr., Inc. v. Wheeler, 129 Ohio St.3d 39 (Ohio 2011) (summary-judgment de novo review standard)
Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (Ohio 1996) (moving party's initial burden in summary judgment)
Vahila v. Hall, 77 Ohio St.3d 421 (Ohio 1997) (summary-judgment evidentiary standards)
State ex rel. Corrigan v. Seminatore, 66 Ohio St.2d 459 (Ohio 1981) (Corrigan II) (standards for affidavits that incorporate documents/facts by reference)
Tucker v. Webb Corp., 4 Ohio St.3d 121 (Ohio 1983) (insufficient time for discovery can make summary judgment improper)