Georgetown of the Highlands v. Cleveland Div. of Water, 2016 Ohio 8039

Georgetown of the Highlands Condominium Association (Appellant) sued City of Cleveland Division of Water (Appellee) claiming overcharging and failure to bill individual condominium units per CCO 535.30; Appellee counterclaimed for unpaid water bills.
The condominium complex has a single service line, single water meter, single shutoff valve, and one account held in the Association’s name; water is supplied via Cleveland under contract with Euclid.
Appellee moved for summary judgment arguing the ordinance does not require separate billing for each unit, and later moved for summary judgment on its counterclaim, submitting affidavits showing a delinquent balance of $194,432.43 and meter-test records.
Appellant disputed meter accuracy and pointed to fluctuating usage records and lack of certain account detail, arguing genuine issues of material fact remained.
The trial court granted summary judgment to Appellee on both Appellant’s complaint (May 27, 2014) and Appellee’s counterclaim (Feb. 3, 2015); this appeal followed and the court affirms.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether CCO 535.30 requires separate metering/billing for each condo unit	Ordinance wording (especially "however") requires separate charges for separate premises; units are separate premises and must be billed individually	The Association is a single customer/premise because there is one service line/meter/account; ordinance applies to premises as served, not to reconfigure private lines	Court held ordinance plain language does not require separate billing; one service line = one account = lawful single bill
Whether genuine issues of material fact exist about amount owed / meter accuracy	Usage fluctuations and allegedly missing account detail create triable issues as to meter accuracy and billed amount	Appellee produced affidavits, meter-test records, and explained fluctuations (estimated reads, occupancy, leaks not past meter) showing readings and balance are reliable	Court held Appellee met burden; no competent evidence raising triable issue. Judgment for $194,432.43 affirmed

Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (standard of review for summary judgment)
State ex rel. Savarese v. Buckeye Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 74 Ohio St.3d 543 (clear statutory language must be applied as written)
State ex rel. Herman v. Klopfleisch, 72 Ohio St.3d 581 (statutory interpretation principles)
State ex rel. Celebrezze v. Bd. of Cty. Commrs., 32 Ohio St.3d 24 (courts only interpret ambiguous statutes)
Slingluff v. Weaver, 66 Ohio St. 621 (historical authority on statutory construction)
State ex rel. Toledo Edison Co. v. Clyde, 76 Ohio St.3d 508 (ambiguity exists when language admits more than one reasonable interpretation)