Lisy v. Mayfair Estates Homeowners Assn., Inc.
2012 Ohio 68
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Lisys and Mayfair Estates HOA dispute over building a detached garage for a motor home; Lisys submitted plans March 7, 2009; Board emailed March 12 requesting more information and invited a presentation; April 2 Board meeting held, April 8 denial issued; Declaration §6.11 requires decision within 7 days or deemed approval; trial court granted summary judgment for Lisys on seven counts; eighth count deemed moot; appellate court affirms in part and vacates in part.
- Governing documents include Declaration, Bylaws, Articles; Declarant rights shift from developer to Board; Section 5.2 sets conditions for plans; Section 6.11 imposes seven-day decision deadline with deemed-approval consequence.
- Board did not expressly approve or deny within seven days, so default approval applied; Mayfair’s email delaying decision is not a “decision” under §6.11; waiver argument not preserved on appeal.
- Trial court’s summary judgment on counts 2–7 was rendered moot by count 1’s default-approval ruling; those counts are vacated as a matter of mootness and harmless error.
- Appellate costs taxed to Mayfair Estates; judgment affirmed in part, vacated in part; majority and concurrence agree with disposition on count 1 and harmlessness of other counts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Board’s delay constituted approval by default under §6.11 | Lisys: no decision within 7 days=approval | Mayfair: email delaying is a decision; waiver not preserved | Yes; default approval applies; email not a decision; waiver not preserved |
Key Cases Cited
- Murtha v. Ravines of McNaughton Condo. Ass’n, 10th Dist. No. 09AP-709, 2010-Ohio-1325 (Ohio Ct. App. (10th Dist. 2010)) (contract interpretation of HOA documents; standards for enforcing covenants)
- Latina v. Woodpath Dev. Co., 57 Ohio St.3d 212 (Ohio 1991) (contract interpretation; plain meaning of covenants)
- Martin Marietta Magnesia Specialties L.L.C. v. Pub. Utils. Comm’n, 129 Ohio St.3d 485, 2011-Ohio-4189 (Ohio Supreme Ct. 2011) (interpretation of contractual terms; intent of parties; contract language governing utility decisions)
- Lager v. Miller-Gonzalez, 120 Ohio St.3d 47, 2008-Ohio-4838 (Ohio Supreme Ct. 2008) (plain-meaning rule; contract terms interpreted from ordinary meaning)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280, 1996 (Ohio Supreme Ct. 1996) (summary judgment standard; burden-shifting)