ONE BRATENAHL PLACE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. v. TEDDY SLIWINSKI, ET AL.
No. 102493
Court of Appeals of Ohio, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
August 20, 2015
2015-Ohio-3353
FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., A.J.; TIM McCORMACK, J., and ANITA LASTER MAYS, J., CONCUR
Joseph W. Diemert
Mark V. Guidetti
Thomas M. Hanculak
Daniel A. Powell
Joseph W. Diemert & Associates
1360 S.O.M. Center Rd.
Mayfield Heights, Ohio 44124-2189
FOR APPELLEES
Teddy Sliwinski, pro se
5800 Fleet Ave.
Cleveland, Ohio 44105
Attorneys for Capital Source FBO AEON Financial
Kirk W. Liederbach
Jeffrey R. Puthoff
Law Office of Schwartz & Associates
P.O. Box 14250
Cleveland, Ohio 44114
Attorneys for Cuyahoga County Treasurer
Timothy J. McGinty
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
BY: Adam D. Jutte
Assistant County Prosecutor
310 Lakeside Ave., Suite 300
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
Steven M. Dettelbach
U.S. Attorney Northern District of Ohio
BY: Kent W. Penhallurick
David A. Ruiz
Assistant U.S. Attorneys
Carl B. Stokes U.S. Courthouse
801 W. Superior Ave., Suite 400
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
{¶1} Appellant, One Bratenahl Place Condominium Association, Inc. (“One Bratenahl“), appeals from the judgment of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas denying its supplemental motion for distribution in connection with the satisfaction of its liens on a foreclosed condominium unit owned by appellees Teddy Sliwinski (“Sliwinski“) and The Sliwinski Family Limited Partership (“SFLP“). One Bratenahl claims the trial court erred in finding that the liens were limited to the costs and assessments that had accrued at the time the liens were filed. Instead, One Bratenahl claims that Sliwinski should be liable under the liens for unpaid association, maintenance, and other fees that accrued between the time the liens were filed and the foreclosure sale.
For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
I. Factual and Procedural History
{¶2} On July 14, 2009, One Bratenahl filed a lien certificate in the Cuyahoga County Recorder‘s Office. The lien stated:
One Bratenahl Place Condominium Association, Inc., hereby claims a lien for unpaid assessments to date against the following unit in said Association
property and the undivided interest in the Common Elements appertaining thereto.
After identifying the property and naming Sliwinski and his wife as the owners, One Bratenahl included the following in a section entitled “Amount of Lien“: “$3,048.16 plus 8% interest per annum from the 23rd day of June 2009, and any unpaid assessments accruing hereinafter until this lien is satisfied.” One Bratenahl filed a second lien certificate on August 13, 2009. The second lien contained identical language to the first, except for the amount that was listed as “$3,753.39 plus 8 percent interest from the 22nd day of October 2009, and any unpaid assessments accruing hereinafter until the lien is satisfied.”
{¶3} One Bratenahl filed a foreclosure action against Sliwinski on March 29, 2010. In a decision issued on December 1, 2011, the magistrate granted default judgment in favor of One Bratenahl and entered a decree of foreclosure. In so doing, the magistrate found that Sliwinski owed (1) $3,408.16 plus 8 percent interest per annum from June 23, 2009, under the first lien certificate; (2) $3,753.39 plus 8 percent interest from November 13, 2009, under the second lien certificate; and (3) unpaid assessments and late fees accruing after November 13, 2009, “until the property transferred on March 22, 2010, in the amount of $4,013.02, plus interest at the rate of 8 percent per annum from March 22, 2010.” Furthermore, the magistrate‘s decision contained the following:
The magistrate further finds that there is due the Plaintiff, One Bratenahl Place Condominium Association, unpaid assessments and late fees accruing from the property transfer date of March 22, 2010, to The Sliwinski Family Limited Partnership. As of January 5, 2011, the total amount due and owing the Plaintiff from the Defendant, The Sliwinski Family Partnership,
is $8,955.33. Additional maintenance fees and assessments through the sheriff‘s sale date will continue to accrue on the account. A determination for said additional amount is held for further order of the court.
{¶4} After approximately three-and-one-half years of attempted negotiation, settlement, and mediation, the trial court adopted the magistrate‘s decision on May 19, 2014. The trial court‘s foreclosure decree ordered SFLP to pay One Bratenahl $8,955.33 from January 5, 2011, and ordered that One Bratenahl‘s liens against Sliwinski and his wife to be satisfied in the amounts of $3,408.16 and $3,753.39 plus interest. The court did not incorporate the magistrate‘s decision regarding after-accruing assessments into its decree.
{¶5} The property was sold at a sheriff‘s sale on September 15, 2014, and the trial court confirmed the sale on September 24, 2014. One Bratenahl subsequently filed a motion to request distribution seeking $122,029.77 from the proceeds to satisfy unpaid assessments that accrued after the two liens were filed in 2009. The trial court denied the motion and, relying on this court‘s decision in W. Chateau Condominium v. Zanders, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 83298, 2004-Ohio-1450, ruled that One Bratenahl‘s liens did not secure amounts coming due after the liens were filed. However, the court also allowed One Bratenahl to refile its motion, provided One Bratenahl could supply documentation evidencing that it held liens securing the amount over what was claimed in the original liens.
{¶6} On December 16, 2014, One Bratenahl filed an amended and supplemental motion to request distribution. On December 19, 2014, the trial court again denied One Bratenahl‘s motion on grounds that One Bratenahl was not entitled to a distribution of the
II. Law and Analysis
{¶7} In its sole assigned error, One Bratenahl argues that the trial court erred in denying its motions requesting an increase in distribution because it was entitled to proceeds for fees that accrued between the time the original liens were filed and the foreclosure sale.
{¶8} In Zanders, a case nearly identical to this one, this court held that
{¶9} Shortly after this court‘s decision in Zanders,
(1) Unless otherwise provided by the declaration or the bylaws, the unit owners association has a lien upon the estate or interest of the owner in any unit and the appurtenant undivided interest in the common elements for the payment of any of the following expenses that are chargeable against the unit and that remain unpaid for ten days after any portion has become due and payable:
(a) The portion of the common expenses chargeable against the unit;
(b) Interest, administrative late fees, enforcement assessments, and collection costs, attorney‘s fees, and paralegal fees the association incurs if authorized by the declaration, the bylaws, or the rules of the unit owners association and if chargeable against the unit.
{¶10} Furthermore,
The lien described in division (A)(1) is effective on the date that a certificate of lien in the form described in division (A)(3) of this section is filed for record in the office of the recorder of the county or counties in which the condominium property is situated pursuant to an authorization given by the board of directors of the unit owners association. This certificate shall contain a description of the unit, the name of the record owner of the unit, and the amount of the unpaid portion of common expenses and, subject to subsequent adjustments, any unpaid interest, administrative late fees, enforcement assessments, collection costs, attorney‘s fees, and paralegal fees. The certificate shall be subscribed by the president or other designated representative of the association.
(Emphasis added.)
A. Standard of Review
{¶11} As
must be construed as a whole and given such interpretation as will give effect to every word and clause in it. No part should be treated as superfluous unless that is manifestly required, and the court should avoid that construction which renders a provision meaningless or inoperative.
D.A.B.E., Inc. v. Toledo-Lucas Cty. Bd. of Health, 96 Ohio St.3d 250, 256, 773 N.E.2d 536 (2002), citing State ex rel. Myers v. Spencer Twp. Rural School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 95 Ohio St. 367, 372-373, 116 N.E. 516 (1917).
{¶12} When a statute is clear and unambiguous, it must be applied as written and no further interpretation is necessary. State ex rel. Savarese v. Buckeye Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 74 Ohio St.3d 543, 545, 660 N.E.2d 463 (1996), citing State ex rel. Herman v. Klopfleisch, 72 Ohio St.3d 581, 584, 651 N.E.2d 995 (1995). Thus, a reviewing court may only interpret a statute where the words of the statute are ambiguous. State ex rel. Celebrezze v. Bd. of Cty. Commrs., 32 Ohio St.3d 24, 27, 512 N.E.2d 332 (1987), citing Slingluff v. Weaver, 66 Ohio St. 621, 64 N.E. 574 (1902), paragraph one of the syllabus. An ambiguity exists if the language is capable of more than one reasonable
{¶13} When a statute is ambiguous, the court may consider the legislative history, other statutes upon the same or similar subjects, the statute‘s objective, and the consequence of a particular construction. See
B. Analysis
{¶14} One Bratenahl contends that the General Assembly‘s inclusion of the phrase “subsequent adjustments” into the current version of
{¶15} We begin by noting that the Ohio General Assembly did not define “subsequent adjustments” in
The lien is a continuing lien upon the lot against which each assessment or charge is made, subject to automatic subsequent adjustments reflecting any additional unpaid interest, administrative late fees, enforcement assessments, collection costs, attorney‘s fees, paralegal fees and court costs.2
{¶16} Thus, the planned community lien statute expressly indicates that liens on a planned community lot are subject to automatic subsequent adjustments, and clearly describes the lien as a “continuing lien.” By contrast, the condominium lien statute at issue here,
(4) The lien described in Division (A)(1) of this section is a continuing lien and is subject to automatic subsequent adjustments that reflect any additional unpaid interest, administrative late fees, enforcement assessments, collection costs, attorney‘s fees, paralegal fees, and court costs.
{¶18} The General Assembly could have included a separate provision in
{¶19} We also recognize that the current version of
{¶21} Article XII, Section 5 of One Bratenahl‘s Declaration states in pertinent part:
The Association shall have a lien upon each Ownership Interest for the payment of all assessments, whether for Common Expenses or levied as special assessments * * * payable in like manner and with the same effect as the lien of the Association for Common Expenses accorded by Chapter 5311.
{¶22} One Bratenahl‘s Declaration references the condominium lien provision of the Ohio Revised Code,
{¶23} Furthermore, we remain unconvinced that the language used in One Bratenahl‘s liens sufficiently apprised Sliwinski that he would be liable for after-accruing debts. One Bratenahl‘s liens included conflicting provisions. In one portion of the liens, One Bratenahl specifically stated that the liens sought to secure “unpaid assessments to date.” However, one section later, One Bratenahl stated that the liens’ amounts were for accrued debt and also “for any unpaid assessments accruing hereinafter until this lien is satisfied.” The ambiguity inherent in these statements fails to clearly apprise Sliwinski that he would be liable for after-acquired debt. Thus, we believe that Zanders is applicable to this case
III. Conclusion
{¶24} In reaffirming Zanders at ¶ 9, we hold that
{¶25} One Bratenahl‘s sole assignment of error is overruled.
{¶26} Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that appellees recover from appellant costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
TIM McCORMACK, J., and
ANITA LASTER MAYS, J., CONCUR