Slosar v. Homestead Creek Homeowners Assoc., Inc., 2011 Ohio 4420

Slosars own property adjacent to Homestead Creek HOA; Landscaping Easement grants HOA right to maintain wall and landscaping and allows Slosars to remedy nonmaintenance after 30 days’ notice; HOA allegedly moved mulch from its area to Slosars’ easement in 2010 after requests; HOA retained M2 to manage landscaping; Slosars incurred $733.77 for mulch and sought reimbursement; trial court awarded judgment to Slosars; Homestead appealed arguing improper notice, business-judgment rule applicability, and mulch as non-maintenance.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether 30-day notice was complied with.	Slosars complied via April 17 fax.	Fax lacked explicit 30-day language; insufficient.	Yes, notice satisfied; Slosars complied with 30-day requirement.
Whether the Landscaping Easement is an independent contract not subject to the business-judgment rule.	Easement governs duties; not a corporate fiduciary context.	Business-judgment rule should apply to HOA decisions.	Applicable; business-judgment rule does not apply to this easement contract.
Whether mulch constitutes maintenance under the easement.	Mulch maintains landscaping by weed control and drainage.	Mulch is beautification, not maintenance.	Mulching is within maintenance; HOA obligated to mulch.

Murray v. Lyon, 95 Ohio App.3d 215 (1994) (de novo review of easement interpretation with factual support)
Gries Sports Ent., Inc. v. Cleveland Browns Football Co., 26 Ohio St.3d 15 (1986) (business-judgment rule presumption burden on challenger)
Lakewood Homes v. BP Oil, Inc., 1999-Ohio-851 (Ohio Supreme Court? (Hancock App.)) (contractual interpretation of easements; intent of parties controls)
Apel v. Katz, 83 Ohio St.3d 11 (1998) (interpretation of easement language; surrounding circumstances guide scope)
Crane Hollow, Inc. v. Marathon Ashland Pipe Line, LLC, 138 Ohio App.3d 57 (2000) (easement as a property interest; contract construction governs)