[Cite as Heritage Woods Area Landowners’ Assn. v. Chuparkoff, 2012-Ohio-2881.]

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

 )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) 

THE HERITAGE WOODS AREA 

LANDOWNERS' ASSOCIATION 

 Appellee/Cross Appellant 

 v. 

TED CHUPARKOFF, et al. 

 Appellants/Cross-Appellees 

C.A. No. 26012 

APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT 

ENTERED IN THE 

BARBERTON MUNICIPAL COURT 

COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO 

CASE No. CVF 1000441 

DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

Dated: June 27, 2012 

 

MOORE, Presiding Judge. 

{¶1} Appellants/Cross-Appellees, Ted Chuparkoff, Margaret Chuparkoff, and Kenneth 

Chuparkoff as Trustee of The Chuparkoff Family Trust, (collectively “the Chuparkoffs”), appeal 

the ruling of the Barberton Municipal Court granting summary judgment in favor of 

Appellee/Cross-Appellant, The Heritage Woods Area Landowners’ Association (“Heritage 

Woods”). Heritage Woods cross-appeals the judgment of the trial court awarding it attorney fees 

in a lesser amount than it had requested. For the reasons set forth below, we are without 

jurisdiction to consider the assignment of error or the cross-appellant assignment of error, and we 

vacate the trial court’s improper reactivation of a previously dismissed action. 

I. 

{¶2} Ted and Margaret Chuparkoff were the owners of real property on Brookrun 

Drive in Copley, Ohio until 2009, when they quit-claimed their interest in the property to 

Kenneth Chuparkoff, as trustee of the Chuparkoff Family Trust, reserving a life estate in the 
2 

 

property. In 2010, Heritage Woods filed a complaint for money judgment upon assessments 

against the Chuparkoffs that it contends were unpaid. It argued that the Brookrun property was 

part of the Heritage Woods Planned Unit Development pursuant to a declaration that was 

recorded with the Summit County Fiscal Officer in 1985. The Chuparkoffs filed an answer 

denying these allegations and a third-party complaint against Lawyers Title Insurance Corp. 

(“Lawyers Title”). 

{¶3} However, on November 2, 2010, the trial court issued an order dismissing the 

case due to the parties’ failure to appear at a hearing. On November 10, 2010, Heritage Woods 

filed a Civ.R. 60(B) Motion for Relief from the November 2, 2010 judgment, requesting the 

court to vacate the dismissal order due to mistake or inadvertence. The trial court appears to 

have set this matter for hearing on January 11, 2011. On a hearing notice issued on January 11, 

2011, the following notation appears: “Motion for relief from judgment granted[.]” 

{¶4} The parties and trial court proceeded on the parties’ claims. On February 17, 

2011, Heritage Woods filed a motion for summary judgment, and, on March 11, 2011, Lawyers 

Title filed a motion for summary judgment. On June 6, 2011, the trial court purported to issue a 

judgment entry granting summary judgment in favor of Heritage Woods and Lawyers Title. The 

Chuparkoffs appealed from the order granting summary judgment in favor of Heritage Woods, 

and Heritage Woods cross-appealed as to the amount of attorney fees awarded to it within the 

judgment. We have consolidated the assignment of error and the cross-appellant assignment of 

error to facilitate our discussion. 

II. 

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

IN FAVOR OF[ ]HERITAGE WOODS[ ]FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS 
3 

 

THAT GENUINE ISSUES OF MATERIAL FACT EXIST AND ARE 

REQUIRED TO BE LITIGATED IN RESPONSE TO [HERITAGE WOODS’] 

COMPLAINT: 

(A) WHETHER, AS A MATTER OF LAW, THAT MEMBERSHIP IN AN 

ASSOCIATION THAT ADOPTS RULES AND REGULATIONS AND 

ASSESSES A YEARLY MONETARY DUES ASSESSMENT WHICH 

AFFECTS THE RIGHTS OF PROPERTY OWNERS AND CREATES A LIEN 

UPON THE REAL ESTATE IS AN ENCUMBRANCE; 

(B) WHETHER, AS A MATTER OF LAW, THAT THE FILED 

DECLARATION UPON WHICH [HERITAGE WOODS] RELIES, IS A VALID 

ENFORCEABLE DOCUMENT THOUGH IT VIOLATES SECTION 1702.01 

ET SEQ. OF THE OHIO REVISED CODE, USURPING THE AUTHORITY OF 

THE STATE OF OHIO TO REGULATE NON-PROFIT CORPORATIONS; 

(C) WHETHER, AS A MATTER OF LAW, THE [CHUPARKOFFS] 

RECEIVED NOTICE THAT BY THE FILING OF A DECLARATION THE 

[CHUPARKOFFS] WERE MEMBERS OF THE ASSOCIATION WHICH BY 

ITS RULES AND REGULATIONS ENCUMBER THE[IR] PROPERTY EVEN 

THOUGH THE[Y] SUBMITTED AN AFFIDAVIT, AS REQUIRED BY A 

NON-MOVING PARTY, THAT THE [THEIR] PROPERTY CANNOT BE 

LOCATED IN THE DOCUMENT[.] 

CROSS-APPELLANT ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY FAILING TO AWARD 

JUDGMENT FOR ALL REASONABLE ATTORNEYS’ FEES INCURRED 

BY[ ]HERITAGE WOODS[ ]WITHOUT DISCUSSION OF THE FACTORS 

FOR THE REASONABLENESS OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES PURSUANT TO 

RULE 1.5 OF THE OHIO RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT. 

{¶5} In their assignment of error and cross-appellant assignment of error respectively, 

the Chuparkoffs and Heritage Woods have attempted to appeal from the journal entry 

purportedly issued by the trial court on June 6, 2011. We dismiss the appeal and cross-appeal, as 

the trial court lacked jurisdiction to issue the June 6, 2011 entry. 

{¶6} This Court must sua sponte raise questions related to our jurisdiction. State v. 

Keith, 9th Dist. No. 08CA009362, 2009-Ohio-76, ¶ 5. See State ex rel. White v. Cuyahoga 

Metro. Hous. Auth., 79 Ohio St.3d 543, 544 (1997). As noted above, the trial court dismissed 

this case through journal entry dated November 2, 2010. “It is well recognized that a court 
4 

 

speaks through its journals and an entry is effective only when it has been journalized. To 

journalize a decision means that certain formal requirements have been met, i.e., the decision is 

reduced to writing, signed by a judge, and filed with the clerk so that it may become a part of the 

permanent record of the court.” San Filipo v. San Filipo, 81 Ohio App.3d 111, 112 (9th 

Dist.1991), citing State v. Ellington, 36 Ohio App.3d 76, 77–78 (9th Dist.1987). 

{¶7} Here, the journal entry dated November 2, 2010 was reduced to writing, signed by 

a judge and filed with the clerk of courts. It dismissed this case. Heritage Woods then moved to 

vacate the November 2, 2010 entry. However, no subsequent journal entry issued by the trial 

court granted the Civ.R. 60(B) motion. The hearing notice which noted that the motion was 

approved cannot serve as an entry vacating the dismissal, as it is not signed by the judge. See 

San Filipo at 112. Further, a notation on the trial court’s file jacket sets forth that the dismissal 

entry was “vacated 1-11-11” and appears to contain a stamp of the signature of the trial court 

judge. However, this notation contains no time-stamp or other evidence of its filing with the 

clerk. See State v. Anderson, 9th Dist. No. 19145, 1999 WL 225413, *1 (Apr. 14, 1999). 

Therefore, the file notation did not constitute a journal entry and, thus, was ineffective to vacate 

the dismissal entry. 

{¶8} Accordingly, this cause was dismissed on November 2, 2010, and the trial could 

then “only relieve a party from judgment by the mechanisms provided by the Ohio Rules of Civil 

Procedure.” (Citations omitted.) Allstate Ins. Co. v. Witta, 9th Dist. 25738, 2011-Ohio-6068, ¶ 

19. “This Court has consistently treated actions taken by the trial court subsequent to the entry 

of a final judgment that are not within the scope of the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure as void,” 

as once the trial court enters final judgment, “it los[es] jurisdiction to substantively modify that 

final judgment.” Witta at ¶ 9. Therefore, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to issue the June 6, 
5 

 

2011 journal entry. Because the journal entry from which the parties attempted to appeal is void, 

we lack jurisdiction to consider the appeals. 

III. 

{¶9} Accordingly, the June 6, 2011 journal entry from which the parties filed their 

appeal and cross-appeal was a nullity. The June 6, 2011 journal entry is vacated, and the appeal 

and cross-appeal are dismissed. 

Judgement vacated, 

and appeal dismissed. 

 Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of 

judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the 

period for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is 

instructed to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the 

mailing in the docket, pursuant to App.R. 30. 

 Costs taxed equally to all parties. 

 

 CARLA MOORE 

 FOR THE COURT 

BELFANCE, J. 

CARR, J. 

CONCUR.

APPEARANCES:

TED CHUPARKOFF, Attorney at Law, for Appellants/Cross-Appellees. 

JOHN J. RUTTER, and MICHAEL J. CAREY, Attorneys at Law, for Appellees/CrossAppellants.