Harbor Park Marina Assn. v. Harbor Park Marina, Inc.
2016 Ohio 8378
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Harbor Park Marina Assn. (Association) maintains seven private roads in a subdivision owned by Harbor Park Marina, Inc. (Marina); Marina operates an adjacent marina accessed only via Marina Avenue.
- A 1977 court ruling and subsequent agreement treated each marina dock as a "lot equivalent" and assessed Marina 15% of a lot owner assessment for road maintenance; later developments increased subdivision use and costs.
- A 2004 deed required Come Sail Away (a neighboring condominium) to pay one-half the cost of maintaining Marina Avenue; a later court order reaffirmed that allocation and directed Marina to pay a prorata share for non-platted properties using Marina Avenue.
- From 2010 Marina stopped paying Association assessments, disputing (1) liability for all seven roads rather than just Marina Avenue and (2) inclusion of Association administrative fees; Association sued for unpaid assessments and Marina counterclaimed for overpayments.
- At bench trial the court: (a) limited Marina’s obligation to Marina Avenue only, (b) excluded officers’ gratuities (administrative fees) from maintenance costs, (c) applied the longstanding 15% lot-equivalent formula to Marina Avenue, and (d) awarded Marina $22,684.32 for overpayments. Association appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Marina must pay assessments for all seven subdivision roads | Association: 15% formula applied historically to all roads; Marina owes for all seven | Marina: only Marina Avenue provides ingress/egress to the marina; assessing all roads is inequitable given changed circumstances | Court: Marina required to share only Marina Avenue costs; limitation not against manifest weight of evidence |
| Whether administrative expenses (officers’ gratuities) are includable in maintenance costs | Association: administrative functions support road maintenance and should be shared | Marina: gratuities and many admin items unrelated to Marina Avenue maintenance should be excluded | Court: exclude officers’ gratuities (administrative fees) from Marina’s share; exclusion supported by evidence |
| Whether the court adopted a new formula to calculate Marina’s share and overpayments | Association: Marina’s overpayment calculation used a new formula, improperly reducing its liability | Marina: applied the established 15% lot-equivalent formula but limited to Marina Avenue as court directed | Court: Marina’s computation used the longstanding 15% rule applied only to Marina Avenue; adoption of calculation was proper |
| Whether trial court’s factual findings were against the manifest weight of the evidence | Association: trial court erred in factual conclusions regarding use and costs | Marina: evidence of changed circumstances and usage supported court’s findings | Court: weighed record and credibility; did not find a manifest miscarriage of justice; affirmed judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (Ohio 2012) (standard for reviewing manifest-weight claims in civil cases adopts criminal manifest-weight test)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (definition of manifest-weight standard)
- Seasons Coal Co., Inc. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77 (Ohio 1984) (presumption in favor of the trial court’s factual findings)