2019 Ohio 4416
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Suarez (defendant) owned a lot in the North Orange subdivision; HOA (plaintiff) enforces recorded deed restrictions requiring prior written approval for exterior modifications.
- Suarez obtained approval in April 2017 for a one-foot retaining wall but built higher and in additional areas and installed exterior electrical, lighting, and began installing fountains, according to the HOA.
- HOA sued for declaratory judgment, injunction to restore/remove unapproved work, and attorneys’ fees; HOA moved for summary judgment with affidavits and photos; Suarez responded pro se but did not submit admissible Civ.R.56 evidence.
- Trial court struck portions of Suarez’s filings as not being proper affidavits or self-authenticating, granted HOA summary judgment, ordered removal/restoration, and awarded attorneys’ fees (initial and supplemental).
- Suarez obtained counsel, moved under Civ.R. 60(B) to vacate (excusable neglect, fraud, inequity); the trial court denied relief and awarded additional fees; Suarez appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether HOA was entitled to summary judgment enforcing deed restrictions for unapproved exterior modifications | HOA: undisputed evidence (affidavits, photos, admissions) shows Suarez deviated from approved plan and violated covenant; HOA entitled to injunction and fees | Suarez: disputed facts — walls were necessary due to grade; submitted revised plans; other lots have similar walls; lighting for security; some work was removed | Court: Summary judgment affirmed — HOA met burden; Suarez failed to present admissible Civ.R.56 evidence to create a genuine issue; admissions supported violation |
| 2. Whether pro se status excused Suarez’s failure to present admissible evidence opposing summary judgment | HOA: Civ.R.56 requires affidavits or other admissible materials; pro se status does not relax rules | Suarez: as a pro se litigant, should be afforded leeway for procedural missteps | Court: Pro se litigants held to same standards; lack of admissible evidence is not excusable; no relief for being pro se |
| 3. Whether Civ.R. 60(B) relief (excusable neglect, fraud, or other reason) warranted vacatur of judgment | HOA: no excusable neglect; affidavits not fraudulent; Suarez disagrees with facts but provided no proof of deceit or extraordinary circumstances | Suarez: claimed excusable neglect as pro se, alleged affidavits contained misrepresentations, claimed selective enforcement and inequity | Court: Denied 60(B) relief — Suarez failed GTE test prongs (no excusable neglect shown; no fraud proven; not an extraordinary case for 60(B)(5)) |
| 4. Whether the supplemental attorneys’ fee award should be reversed if underlying judgment reversed | HOA: fees are recoverable under R.C. 5312.13 and covenants; supplemental fees supported by billing | Suarez: sought reversal contingent on reversing summary judgment | Court: Because summary judgment and 60(B) denial were affirmed, supplemental fee award also affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Hounshell v. Am. States Ins. Co., 67 Ohio St.2d 427 (1981) (summary judgment improper when material fact is genuinely disputed)
- Inland Refuse Transfer Co. v. Browning-Ferris Inds. of Ohio, Inc., 15 Ohio St.3d 321 (1984) (court may not resolve evidentiary ambiguities on summary judgment)
- Smiddy v. The Wedding Party, Inc., 30 Ohio St.3d 35 (1987) (appellate review of summary judgment is de novo)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (1996) (moving party’s initial burden and nonmoving party’s obligation to produce specific evidentiary materials)
- Mitseff v. Wheeler, 38 Ohio St.3d 112 (1988) (nonmoving party must set forth specific facts showing genuine issue)
- GTE Automatic Electric, Inc. v. ARC Industries, 47 Ohio St.2d 146 (1976) (three-part test for Civ.R. 60(B) relief)
- Rose Chevrolet, Inc. v. Adams, 36 Ohio St.3d 17 (1988) (analysis of excusable neglect under Civ.R. 60(B))
- Bank of Am., N.A. v. Kuchta, 141 Ohio St.3d 75 (2014) (standard for fraud/misconduct under Civ.R. 60(B)(3))
- State ex rel. Fuller v. Mengel, 100 Ohio St.3d 352 (2003) (pro se litigants are held to same procedural and substantive legal standards)