Preview
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2023 Mar 09 8:55 AM-20CV003982
0G296 - P5
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO
CIVIL DIVISION
JAMES PFEIFER,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 20CV-3982
v.
(JUDGE BILL SPERLAZZA)
BALLANTRAE COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION,
Defendant.
FINAL JUDGMENT
I. Introduction.
This Court entered its decision on defendant Ballantrae Community Association’s
motion for summary judgment on December 13, 2022. The entry granted summary
judgment on plaintiffs Counts One, Three, Four, and Five and denied summary judgment
as to Count Two. Defendant filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s findings on
Counts One and Three and to reconsider the denial of summary judgment on Count Two
on December 20. Plaintiff James Pfeifer did not file opposition to the motion.
Because the decision did not adjudicate all claims as to all parties, it is an
interlocutory order instead of a Final Judgment. Perritt v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 10th
Dist. No. o3AP-1008, 2004-Ohio-4706, {| 10. Under Civ. R. 54(B), a party may move for
reconsideration of a trial court’s interlocutory order, and “when presented with such a
motion for reconsideration, a trial court may alter or reverse its earlier decision.” Id.
Il. Reconsideration of Counts One and Three.
Plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment on the enforceability of the exculpatory
clause (Count One) and a declaratory judgment that the notice of denial issued on April
7, 2020 was not compliant with the Declaration’s requirements (Count Three). The Court
granted summary judgment in favor of defendant on both counts, but did not expressly
determine the rights of the parties as sought in a declaratory judgment action.
1
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2023 Mar 09 8:55 AM-20CV003982
0G296 - P5
For good cause shown, defendant’s motion is GRANTED as to clarifying its earlier
decision on Counts One and Three.
As to Count One of plaintiff's complaint, the Court declares that the exculpatory
clause set forth in Article VII, Section H of Ballantrae’s Declaration of Covenants is
enforceable.
As to Count Three of plaintiff's complaint, the Court declares that that the April 7,
2020 letter fully complied with requirements set forth in the Declaration of Covenants.
Ill. Reconsideration of Count Two.
Defendant Ballantrae seeks reconsideration of the Court’s denial of summary
judgment on Count Two of the complaint, which sought a declaratory judgment that the
ARC was required to adjudicate an application under the guidelines that were in effect at
the time of submission.
In Count Two of plaintiff's complaint, Pfeifer sought a determination that “Article
VII, Paragraph C of the Declaration of Covenants requires the ARC to determine an
application’s adherence to design guidelines established from time to time by itself. [This
Article] should not be construed to allow the ARC to revise design guidelines in response
to receiving an application that adheres to then existing design guidelines and then to
apply revised guidelines against the application.” (Comp., {1 22-23) Defendant submitted
it was in complete agreement with this interpretation. Board president Cristian Cooney
and Gary Jensen, the former chair of the ARC, both testified in their depositions that the
ARC is not permitted to decide an application based on unpublished guidelines but must
use the guidelines in effect at the time of the application. (Cooney Depo., pg. 43; Jensen
Depo., pg. 27, lines 18-19.)
Defendant argues that a claim for declaratory judgment is meant to resolve “any
question of construction or validity arising under the instrument, constitutional
provision, statute, rule, ordinance, resolution, contract, or franchise and obtain a
declaration of rights, status, or other legal relations under it.” R.C. 2721.03. However,
courts may determine declaratory judgment is not appropriate “if the judgment or decree
would not terminate the uncertainty or controversy giving rise to the action or proceeding
in which the declaratory relief is sought.” R.C. 2721.07. A declaratory judgment does not
require a declaration that a party acted in conformance with this determination, or
2
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2023 Mar 09 8:55 AM-20CV003982
0G296 - Pé
breached it, unless the declaration can only be made with the resolution of specific issues
of fact.
“[D]eclaratory judgment is inappropriate when, as in the instant matter, a
resolution of the controversy depends greatly upon a determination of the facts of the
case.” Therapy Partners of Am. v. Health Providers, 129 Ohio App.3d 572, 578, 718
N.E.2d 518 (10th Dist.1998).
Here, a declaratory judgment would not terminate the controversy because
plaintiff did not ask for a finding that the ARC was obligated to judge applications against
existing guidelines and then failed to do so, in a manner constituting non-performance or
breach of a term. Plaintiff simply asked for a declaration on what the Covenant requires,
and defendant agreed with the interpretation entirely, rendering a lack of controversy on
Count Two. No genuine dispute of material fact exists, and defendant is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law.
Accordingly, the court GRANTS the motion for reconsideration and GRANTS
summary judgment in favor of defendant on Count Two of the complaint. Because this
was the last viable claim following this Court’s decision on summary judgment, there are
no remaining active claims.
For the reasons set forth in the Opinion released this day, a declaratory judgment
is rendered finding that the ARC was required to adjudicate an application under the
guidelines that were in effect at the time of submission.
Final Judgment is therefore granted dismissing all claims of plaintiff James Pfeifer
and granting judgment in favor of defendant Ballantrae Community Association. The
upcoming case schedule, including the trial date of March 14, 2023, is hereby vacated.
Court costs are taxed against plaintiff.
This is a Final Appealable Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2023 Mar 09 8:55 AM-20CV003982
0G296 - Pé
Franklin County Court of Common Pleas
Date: 03-09-2023
Case Title: JAMES PFEIFER -VS- BALLANTRAE COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION
Case Number: 20CV003982
Type: JOURNAL ENTRY
It Is So Ordered
ree
/s/ Judge Bill Sperlazza
Electronically signed on 2023-Mar-09 page 4 of 4
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2023 Mar 09 8:55 AM-20CV003982
0G296 - P6é
Court Disposition
Case Number: 20CV003982
Case Style: JAMES PFEIFER -VS- BALLANTRAE COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION
Case Terminated: 18 - Other Terminations
Final Appealable Order: Yes
Motion Tie Off Information:
1. Motion CMS Document Id: 20CV0039822023-03-0399980000
Document Title: 03-03-2023-MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE -
DEFENDANT: BALLANTRAE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
Disposition: MOTION RELEASED TO CLEAR DOCKET
2. Motion CMS Document Id: 20CV0039822022-12-2099980000
Document Title: 12-20-2022-MOTION TO RECONSIDER -
DEFENDANT: BALLANTRAE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
Disposition: MOTION GRANTED
Preview
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2023 Mar 09 8:55 AM-20CV003982 0G296 - P5 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO CIVIL DIVISION JAMES PFEIFER, Plaintiff, Case No. 20CV-3982 v. (JUDGE BILL SPERLAZZA) BALLANTRAE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, Defendant. FINAL JUDGMENT I. Introduction. This Court entered its decision on defendant Ballantrae Community Association’s motion for summary judgment on December 13, 2022. The entry granted summary judgment on plaintiffs Counts One, Three, Four, and Five and denied summary judgment as to Count Two. Defendant filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s findings on Counts One and Three and to reconsider the denial of summary judgment on Count Two on December 20. Plaintiff James Pfeifer did not file opposition to the motion. Because the decision did not adjudicate all claims as to all parties, it is an interlocutory order instead of a Final Judgment. Perritt v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 10th Dist. No. o3AP-1008, 2004-Ohio-4706, {| 10. Under Civ. R. 54(B), a party may move for reconsideration of a trial court’s interlocutory order, and “when presented with such a motion for reconsideration, a trial court may alter or reverse its earlier decision.” Id. Il. Reconsideration of Counts One and Three. Plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment on the enforceability of the exculpatory clause (Count One) and a declaratory judgment that the notice of denial issued on April 7, 2020 was not compliant with the Declaration’s requirements (Count Three). The Court granted summary judgment in favor of defendant on both counts, but did not expressly determine the rights of the parties as sought in a declaratory judgment action. 1 Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2023 Mar 09 8:55 AM-20CV003982 0G296 - P5 For good cause shown, defendant’s motion is GRANTED as to clarifying its earlier decision on Counts One and Three. As to Count One of plaintiff's complaint, the Court declares that the exculpatory clause set forth in Article VII, Section H of Ballantrae’s Declaration of Covenants is enforceable. As to Count Three of plaintiff's complaint, the Court declares that that the April 7, 2020 letter fully complied with requirements set forth in the Declaration of Covenants. Ill. Reconsideration of Count Two. Defendant Ballantrae seeks reconsideration of the Court’s denial of summary judgment on Count Two of the complaint, which sought a declaratory judgment that the ARC was required to adjudicate an application under the guidelines that were in effect at the time of submission. In Count Two of plaintiff's complaint, Pfeifer sought a determination that “Article VII, Paragraph C of the Declaration of Covenants requires the ARC to determine an application’s adherence to design guidelines established from time to time by itself. [This Article] should not be construed to allow the ARC to revise design guidelines in response to receiving an application that adheres to then existing design guidelines and then to apply revised guidelines against the application.” (Comp., {1 22-23) Defendant submitted it was in complete agreement with this interpretation. Board president Cristian Cooney and Gary Jensen, the former chair of the ARC, both testified in their depositions that the ARC is not permitted to decide an application based on unpublished guidelines but must use the guidelines in effect at the time of the application. (Cooney Depo., pg. 43; Jensen Depo., pg. 27, lines 18-19.) Defendant argues that a claim for declaratory judgment is meant to resolve “any question of construction or validity arising under the instrument, constitutional provision, statute, rule, ordinance, resolution, contract, or franchise and obtain a declaration of rights, status, or other legal relations under it.” R.C. 2721.03. However, courts may determine declaratory judgment is not appropriate “if the judgment or decree would not terminate the uncertainty or controversy giving rise to the action or proceeding in which the declaratory relief is sought.” R.C. 2721.07. A declaratory judgment does not require a declaration that a party acted in conformance with this determination, or 2 Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2023 Mar 09 8:55 AM-20CV003982 0G296 - Pé breached it, unless the declaration can only be made with the resolution of specific issues of fact. “[D]eclaratory judgment is inappropriate when, as in the instant matter, a resolution of the controversy depends greatly upon a determination of the facts of the case.” Therapy Partners of Am. v. Health Providers, 129 Ohio App.3d 572, 578, 718 N.E.2d 518 (10th Dist.1998). Here, a declaratory judgment would not terminate the controversy because plaintiff did not ask for a finding that the ARC was obligated to judge applications against existing guidelines and then failed to do so, in a manner constituting non-performance or breach of a term. Plaintiff simply asked for a declaration on what the Covenant requires, and defendant agreed with the interpretation entirely, rendering a lack of controversy on Count Two. No genuine dispute of material fact exists, and defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Accordingly, the court GRANTS the motion for reconsideration and GRANTS summary judgment in favor of defendant on Count Two of the complaint. Because this was the last viable claim following this Court’s decision on summary judgment, there are no remaining active claims. For the reasons set forth in the Opinion released this day, a declaratory judgment is rendered finding that the ARC was required to adjudicate an application under the guidelines that were in effect at the time of submission. Final Judgment is therefore granted dismissing all claims of plaintiff James Pfeifer and granting judgment in favor of defendant Ballantrae Community Association. The upcoming case schedule, including the trial date of March 14, 2023, is hereby vacated. Court costs are taxed against plaintiff. This is a Final Appealable Order. IT IS SO ORDERED. Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2023 Mar 09 8:55 AM-20CV003982 0G296 - Pé Franklin County Court of Common Pleas Date: 03-09-2023 Case Title: JAMES PFEIFER -VS- BALLANTRAE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION Case Number: 20CV003982 Type: JOURNAL ENTRY It Is So Ordered ree /s/ Judge Bill Sperlazza Electronically signed on 2023-Mar-09 page 4 of 4 Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2023 Mar 09 8:55 AM-20CV003982 0G296 - P6é Court Disposition Case Number: 20CV003982 Case Style: JAMES PFEIFER -VS- BALLANTRAE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION Case Terminated: 18 - Other Terminations Final Appealable Order: Yes Motion Tie Off Information: 1. Motion CMS Document Id: 20CV0039822023-03-0399980000 Document Title: 03-03-2023-MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE - DEFENDANT: BALLANTRAE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION Disposition: MOTION RELEASED TO CLEAR DOCKET 2. Motion CMS Document Id: 20CV0039822022-12-2099980000 Document Title: 12-20-2022-MOTION TO RECONSIDER - DEFENDANT: BALLANTRAE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION Disposition: MOTION GRANTED