Wildberry Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. Schuffert
2017 Ohio 2702
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Wildberry Homeowners Association (a planned-community HOA governed by a Declaration) sought foreclosure against William Schuffert for unpaid assessments beginning July 1, 2012; a lien was recorded November 27, 2013 and complaint filed August 26, 2014.
- Schuffert stopped paying after disputing a $437 charge for “legal fees” dated November 11, 2011; he raised defenses during litigation and denied the Association’s foreclosure allegations.
- The Association moved for summary judgment; the trial court granted the motion and entered a decree of foreclosure on July 24, 2015, including attorney fees in the lien calculation.
- On appeal, Schuffert argued genuine issues of material fact existed and challenged (inter alia) the trial court’s application of R.C. 5311.18, the inclusion and reasonableness of attorney fees, and whether failure to enforce covenants could be raised as a defense.
- The Ninth District reversed and remanded, holding the trial court erred by applying R.C. 5311.18 (a condominium statute) to a planned community governed by R.C. Chapter 5312 and directing the trial court to reconsider the fee and covenant-enforcement issues under the correct law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of R.C. 5311.18 (bar on certain defenses in foreclosure) | Rely on R.C. 5311.18 to preclude defenses based on Association’s failure to provide services or enforce covenants | Rely on distinction between condominium statute (R.C. 5311) and planned-community statute (R.C. 5312); R.C. 5311.18 does not apply | Reversed: R.C. 5311.18 does not apply to planned communities; trial court erred applying it |
| Right to assess attorney fees pre-judgment and include in lien | Association claims entitlement to attorney fees and to include them in lien amounts | Schuffert contends some fees pre-date his default and were improperly assessed without following Declaration/5312.11 procedures | Not decided on merits; remanded for trial court to determine under correct law whether fees (including Nov. 11, 2011 charge) were properly assessed |
| Sufficiency of evidentiary support for fee reasonableness | Association argued fees were recoverable | Schuffert argued the record lacked evidence that fees were reasonable | Court declined to resolve; remanded for trial court to assess fee reasonableness under proper standards |
| Availability of covenant-enforcement/failure-to-enforce as defense | Association argued such defenses barred under R.C. 5311.18 | Schuffert argued he could raise Association’s failure to follow Declaration procedures/enforce covenants as a defense | Court held defendant may raise those defenses because R.C. 5311.18 does not apply to planned communities; remanded for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (Ohio 1996) (summary judgment reviewed de novo)
- Murphy v. Reynoldsburg, 65 Ohio St.3d 356 (Ohio 1992) (court must view facts in favor of nonmoving party on summary judgment)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (Ohio 1996) (moving party’s burden and burden-shifting framework for summary judgment)
- State ex rel. Zimmerman v. Tompkins, 75 Ohio St.3d 447 (Ohio 1996) (nonmoving party must set forth specific facts showing genuine issue)