JAMES W. FETTRO, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, - vs - ROMBACH CENTER, LLC, et al., Defendants-Appellants.
CASE NO. CA2012-07-018
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO CLINTON COUNTY
6/3/2013
[Cite as Fettro v. Rombach Ctr., L.L.C., 2013-Ohio-2279.]
CIVIL APPEAL FROM CLINTON COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Case No. CVH 2011-0220
Finney, Stagnaro, Saba & Patterson Co., L.P.A., Paul T. Saba, Jeffrey M. Nye, 2623 Erie Avenue, Cincinnati, Ohio 45208, for defendants-appellants, Rombach Center, Only Downtown Pizza, and Papa John‘s
William E. Peelle, 149 East Main Street, Hillsboro, Ohio 45133, for defendant, Billy Kong
RINGLAND, P.J.
{¶ 1} Defendants-appellants, Rombach Center, LLC and Only Downtown Pizza doing business as Papa John‘s Pizza, appeal a decision of the Clinton County Court of Common Pleas granting summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs-appellees, James W. Fettro, Joyce Fettro, Heath H. Fettro, and J. Steven Fettro. For the reasons stated below, we affirm.
{¶ 3} These properties are governed by an agreement entered into by appellants’ and appellees’ predecessors-in-interest. This agreement provides that the landowners of the parcels would develop, maintain, and improve the property as a retail shopping center. The owners of parcel B agreed to develop their property as a supermarket. In return, the owners of parcels C and D agreed to develop their property to include a retail drug store and other retail shops. The agreement also contains a restrictive covenant which lists uses that the owners are not permitted to allow to operate on the parcels. The prohibited uses include a movie theater, a bowling alley, and any non-retail businesses except those business services consistent with community standards. The parties’ predecessors-in-interest also applied to register the parcels as a “Planned Development District” (PD) for the City of Wilmington. The zoning application was approved, and the parcels were registered as a PD-2 zone.
{¶ 4} On March 30, 2011, appellees filed a declaratory judgment action. Appellees wished to sell parcel B to a church and sought an order that the operation of a church would not violate the agreement. Appellants objected and argued that the agreement and Wilmington Zoning Ordinances prohibited the operation of a church on parcel B. Subsequently, appellants and appellees each moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted summary judgment to appellees, finding that the operation of a church on parcel B was not prohibited by the agreement between the parties or Wilmington‘s Zoning Ordinances.
{¶ 5} Appellants filed this appeal, asserting three assignments of error.
{¶ 6} Assignment of Error No. 1:
{¶ 8} Appellants argue the trial court erred in its interpretation of the agreement between the parties. Appellants assert the court erred when it applied a presumption against restrictive covenants and it strictly construed the covenant against the restriction. Instead, appellants argue the trial court should have looked to the agreement as a whole and looking at the whole agreement, it clearly shows a church is prohibited from operating on the property.
{¶ 9} This court‘s review of a trial court‘s ruling on a summary judgment motion is de novo, which means we review the judgment independently and without deference to the trial court‘s determination. Simmons v. Yingling, 12th Dist. No. CA2010-11-117, 2011-Ohio-4041, ¶ 18. We utilize the same standard in our review that the trial court uses in its evaluation of the motion. Id.
{¶ 10} Summary judgment is appropriate when there are no genuine issues of material fact to be litigated, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, reasonable minds can come to only one conclusion, and that conclusion is adverse to the nonmoving party.
{¶ 12} Restrictive covenants in deeds are generally interpreted by those rules used to interpret contracts. Dillingham at ¶ 18. As the Supreme Court has stated:
the general rule, with respect to construing agreements restricting the use of real estate, is that such agreements are strictly construed against limitations upon such use, and that all doubts should be resolved against a possible construction thereof which would increase the restriction upon the use of such real estate.
Driscoll at 277, citing Loblaw, Inc. v. Warren Plaza, Inc., 163 Ohio St. 581 (1955). Furthermore, “[i]f the covenant‘s language is indefinite, doubtful, and capable of contradictory interpretations, the court must construe the covenant in favor of the free use of land.” Cumberland Trail Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. Bush, 5th Dist. No. 11 CA 40, 2011-Ohio-6041, ¶ 13, citing Houk v. Ross, 34 Ohio St.2d 77 (1973), paragraph two of the syllabus.
{¶ 13} In the present case, the agreement between the parties set forth the general plan for the “acquisition and development, maintenance, and improvement of the said Parcel
{¶ 14} Paragraph 3.02 in the agreement provides that appellees’ predecessor in interest “will develop its Parcel B with a supermarket.” Paragraph 3.03 goes on to state that in no event shall the parties operate or permit any other person to operate on parcel B, C, or D any of the following businesses or services:
- Move theater or cinema
- State or local unemployment office
- Night club
- Bingo parlor or bowling alley
- Any non-retail business except those business services consistent with community standards
- Any retail business selling used merchandise except rent to own furniture and appliance stores
- Any lounge, restaurant, or games parlor located within 180 feet of Parcel B, Parcel C, or Parcel D.
{¶ 15} We begin by noting that we disagree with appellants’ argument that the trial court incorrectly stated the law regarding restrictive covenants. The trial court merely restated the Ohio Supreme Court‘s most recent proclamation regarding interpreting restrictive covenants. Additionally, the trial court did not apply “a presumption against enforcement of the Agreement‘s restrictive covenant” but instead, looked to the language of the agreement to see whether churches were prohibited from operating on parcel B.
{¶ 16} We find that the trial court did not err in finding that the agreement did not
{¶ 17} Additionally, there are no other provisions in the agreement which expressly prohibits churches. Appellants argue that the language in the agreement referring to the parcels as the “shopping center,” “retail shops,” and the statement that parcel B is to be developed as a supermarket shows that the parties intended for the property to be restricted to retail stores. However, to be enforceable, a covenant must expressly prohibit the restricted use. The general language in the agreement that refers to the property as a “shopping center” is insufficient to prohibit a church. While referring to the property as a shopping center might show that the parties intended the property to be used for retail, this is not enough to prohibit all uses that are inconsistent with retail stores such as a church. This court is without the power to rewrite contracts. If the parties wished to restrict churches from operating on parcel B, they should have expressly stated this in unambiguous language.
{¶ 18} Appellants’ first assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 19} Assignment of Error No. 2:
{¶ 20} THE TRIAL COURT IMPROPERLY APPLIED AND INTERPRETED THE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE PROPERTY.
Zoning
{¶ 22} Part Eleven of the Wilmington Codified Ordinances establishes the city of Wilmington‘s Zoning Ordinances. Chapter 1159 governs “Planned Development Districts” (PD). In this case, the property is zoned as a PD-2 district. Uses that are permitted in a PD-2 district include “contingent uses and conditional uses in the B-1 Zoning District.”
{¶ 23} Initially, we find that a church is a “contingent use” in a B-1 zoning district. Contingent uses for a B-1 zoning district are listed in
{¶ 24} Our inquiry now turns to whether the operation of a church in parcel B meets the second requirement, a “use developed in a unified manner in accordance with the approved development plan.”
{¶ 25} In this case, in 1985 the property owners of parcels B, C, and D applied to have the property zoned as PD-2. Within this 1985 application, the property owners submitted the required development plan. This plan included an architectural drawing of the property and the proposed buildings. The plan also lists the specifications of the buildings, parking spaces, sidewalks, and roadways on the property. After a careful review of the development plan, we find that a church is not prohibited from operating on parcel B.
{¶ 26} Appellants argue that the development plan shows that a church is not permitted to operate on parcel B as the drawing titles the plan the “Shopping Center.” Appellants assert that although the provisions of PD-2 would theoretically permit a church to operate in this zone, the “Shopping Center” designation in the development plan limits the permissible businesses for zoning purposes to retail shops. Thus, because a church is not a retail business, it does not fit under “Shopping Center,” and it violates the Wilmington Zoning Ordinances. We find that the development plan does not prohibit the operation of a church. While the drawing is titled “Shopping center,” this language by itself is insufficient to prohibit all uses except retail shops.
{¶ 27} Based on the foregoing, a church is not prevented from operating on parcel B under the Wilmington Zoning Ordinances. As noted above, a church is expressly allowed to operate in a B-1 zoning district and a church fell within the approved development plan. Therefore, the trial court did not err in finding that an operation of a church is not prohibited by the Wilmington Zoning Ordinances.
{¶ 28} Appellants’ second argument is that the trial court erred when it took judicial notice of certain facts in its decision as to whether the zoning ordinances would be violated.
{¶ 29} Judicial notice is governed by
{¶ 30} If a trial court takes judicial notice of a fact without prior notification of the parties, it is the adversely affected party‘s obligation to object and request a hearing. Ohio St. Assn. of United Assn. of Journeymen and Apprentices v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 123 Ohio App.3d 190, 196 (8th Dist.1997). If a party fails to timely request an opportunity to be heard regarding judicial notice, the party waives or forfeits any challenges to the judicially-noticed facts. Brackett v. Moler Raceway Park, L.L.C., 12th Dist. No. CA2012-06-009, 2013-Ohio-1102, ¶ 58. In this case, appellants failed to request an opportunity to be heard on the propriety of taking judicial notice. Consequently, appellants waived any challenge to the judicially noticed facts.
{¶ 31} Appellants’ second assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 32} Assignment of Error No. 3:
{¶ 33} THE TRIAL COURT VIOLATED THE DOCTRINE OF CONSTITUTIONAL AVOIDANCE BY RAISING A CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE SUA SPONTE.
{¶ 34} Appellants argue that the trial court violated the doctrine of constitutional avoidance by sua sponte raising the issue of whether a restrictive covenant or a city‘s zoning
{¶ 35} The Ohio Supreme Court has stated that the duty of a reviewing court is to decide actual controversies by a judgment that can be carried into effect, and not to give opinions upon moot questions or abstract propositions, or to declare principles or rules of law that cannot affect the matter in issue in the case. Nead v. Brown Cty. Gen. Hosp., 12th Dist. No. CA2005-09-018, 2007-Ohio-2443, ¶ 111, citing Miner v. Witt, 82 Ohio St. 237 (1910). This court has found that neither the agreement nor the Wilmington Zoning Ordinances prohibit a church from operating on parcel B. Therefore, we do not need to address whether a court‘s enforcement of a restrictive deed covenant or municipal ordinances that would prohibit the operation of a church on a piece of land would violate the United States Constitution or the Ohio Constitution. See
{¶ 36} Additionally, we note that the trial court never stated that the court‘s enforcement of the agreement or the Zoning Ordinances would violate either the United States or Ohio Constitutions. Instead, the trial court expressed its concern that if it were to interpret the agreement or the zoning ordinances as prohibiting the operation of a church on parcel B, this interpretation could be unconstitutional. The trial court went on to state, “the Court makes no definitive findings on these questions.” Thus, there is no issue for this court to rule upon because the trial court made no findings as to whether the enforcement of the agreement or the Zoning Ordinances would be unconstitutional.
{¶ 37} Appellants’ third assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 38} Judgment affirmed.
PIPER and M. POWELL, JJ., concur.
- 10 -