Whitehall v. Olander
2017 Ohio 2869
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- City of Whitehall and Franklin County Board of Health sued Thomas Olander and Woodcliff Condominium Unit Owners' Association (WCUOA) in 2007, alleging public-nuisance conditions; a receiver was appointed and multiple receivers have administered the property.
- In 2012 the court appointed Mark S. Froehlich as receiver and issued an order granting the receiver broad, exclusive authority to manage WCUOA, including control of funds, contracts, and authority to employ counsel.
- In June–July 2015 attorney James P. Connors filed appearances for Olander and later for WCUOA; receiver Froehlich moved to strike Connors’ appearance for WCUOA, then stipulated with Connors to withdraw that motion, but later withdrew the stipulation.
- Appellees objected, asserting the receiver (not unit owners or others) has exclusive authority to retain counsel for WCUOA; the trial court treated appellees’ filing as a motion to disqualify Connors for WCUOA representation.
- At an October 9, 2015 demolition hearing the court questioned Connors about his authority to appear for Olander and WCUOA, reserved ruling on disqualification, and later (Oct. 26, 2015) disqualified Connors from representing WCUOA, concluding the receiver alone had authority to retain counsel.
- Defendants appealed, arguing the disqualification was sua sponte, required an evidentiary hearing, and deprived WCUOA of standing; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court improperly disqualified Connors for WCUOA representation | Appellees: Receiver has exclusive authority to bind WCUOA; Connors was not retained by receiver so must be disqualified | Appellants: Disqualification was sua sponte and without valid basis | Court: Not sua sponte; filings and hearing prompted ruling; disqualification affirmed based on prior order granting receiver exclusive contract authority |
| Whether an evidentiary hearing was required before disqualification | Appellees: No, Kala-type hearing not required here | Appellants: Kala requires hearing when disqualification is asserted; court erred by not holding one | Court: Kala's required hearing limited to ‘‘side-switching’’ cases; trial court adequately addressed issue at hearing and no prejudice shown |
| Whether the court's order deprived WCUOA of standing by preventing it from retaining counsel | Appellees: WCUOA remains represented by receiver-retained counsel; unit owners may retain counsel individually | Appellants: Disqualification denied WCUOA the ability to defend itself | Court: No standing denial; receiver lawfully controls WCUOA affairs and has provided counsel; plaintiffs' motion did not bar unit owners from separate counsel for their individual interests |
| Whether an evidentiary hearing would have changed outcome | Appellees: No, court’s interpretation of its prior order is dispositive | Appellants: A formal hearing could show authority to retain Connors | Court: Additional evidence would not alter unambiguous 2012 order; no prejudice from lack of formal hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- 155 N. High v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 72 Ohio St.3d 423 (trial court supervises attorney conduct before it)
- Kala v. Aluminum Smelting & Refining Co., 81 Ohio St.3d 1 (hearing required when attorney leaves firm to join opposing side)
- Dayton Bar Assn. v. Parisi, 131 Ohio St.3d 345 (discussing Kala and its limited scope)
- Dickens v. J&E Custom Homes, Inc., 187 Ohio App.3d 627 (2d Dist.) (application of Kala in a side-switching disqualification context)