Grande Arcade, Ltd. v. Grand Arcade Condominium Owners' Assn., Inc.
2017 Ohio 2760
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Grand Arcade, Ltd. (owner of five commercial condominium units) challenged a special assessment levied by the Grand Arcade Condominium Owners’ Association to fund an extensive window-frame and masonry replacement project affecting four historic buildings.
- The Association determined window frames, exterior trim, and related exterior work were Common Elements; glass and sashes were treated as Limited Common Elements belonging to individual units.
- Association awarded a $1.622M bid to Miceli Glass and allocated costs per square foot: $60/sq ft for glass/sash and $107/sq ft for Common Elements (total $167/sq ft). Grand Arcade was charged only for the Common Elements portion and was assessed $108,000.
- Grand Arcade sued seeking a declaration that it (as a commercial owner) was not responsible for residential window costs, an injunction against further assessment, and damages for negligence and overstatement of costs.
- The magistrate and trial court granted summary judgment for the Association, holding window frames and related exterior work are Common Elements and Grand Arcade must pay its proportionate share; Grand Arcade appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Condominium Declaration/Bylaws require a commercial-unit owner to pay for window replacement (Common Elements) | Grand Arcade: windows/glass/sashes/frames are not Common Elements; commercial owners are exempt from residential Limited Common Elements and thus not liable for these costs | Association: Declaration defines window frames and exterior elements as Common Elements; owners must pay proportionate share of Common Elements regardless of unit type | Court: Window frames and exterior trim are Common Elements; Grand Arcade is responsible for proportionate Common Elements assessment |
| Whether the Association’s $108,000 allocation for Grand Arcade is supported by evidence | Grand Arcade: Miceli’s testimony called part of the estimate a “WAG” and the split was arbitrary; allocation lacks evidentiary support | Association: Miceli explained his methodology (subtracting known costs to estimate sash/glass), and Grand Arcade produced no contrary evidence or documents | Court: Association met summary judgment burden; Grand Arcade presented no evidence to create a material factual dispute; allocation upheld |
| Whether the trial court could enter an affirmative declaration favoring the Association absent a separate counterclaim | Grand Arcade: Trial court should not have declared Appellant liable when Association did not seek affirmative relief | Association: The declaratory relief sought by Grand Arcade necessarily required adjudication of liability; court may resolve issues raised in plaintiff’s complaint | Court: Declaratory judgment resolved issues presented by Grand Arcade’s complaint; no separate counterclaim required |
Key Cases Cited
- Nottingdale Homeowners’ Assn., Inc. v. Darby, 33 Ohio St.3d 32 (1987) (condominium declarations/bylaws construed as contracts subject to ordinary contract rules)
- Aultman Hosp. Assn. v. Community Mut. Ins. Co., 46 Ohio St.3d 51 (1989) (clear, unambiguous contract language is enforced as written)
- Continental W. Condo. Unit Owners Assn. v. Howard E. Ferguson, Inc., 74 Ohio St.3d 501 (1996) (interpretation of condominium instruments is reviewed de novo)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (1996) (movant for summary judgment bears initial burden to show absence of genuine issue of material fact)
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (1996) (appellate review of summary judgment is de novo)
- Zivich v. Mentor Soccer Club, 82 Ohio St.3d 367 (1998) (summary judgment standard: evidence must be construed in favor of nonmoving party)