[Cite as Debis v. Pineview Court Condominium Assn., Inc. , 2011-Ohio-5931.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA 

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION 

No. 96740

JERRY J. DEVIS, ET AL.

PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES 

vs. 

PINEVIEW COURT CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, 

INC., ET AL.

DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS 

JUDGMENT: 

DISMISSED

Civil Appeal from the 

Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas 

Case No. CV-646202 

BEFORE: Rocco, J., Blackmon, P.J., and Celebrezze, J. 

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: November 17, 2011 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS
2

For Gemini Development Group 

Patrick S. Corrigan 

55 Public Square 

Suite 930 

Cleveland, Ohio 44113 

For R.E. Warner & Associates

F. Thomas Vickers 

Vickers Law Group Co., LPA 

1119 Bassett Road 

Westlake, Ohio 44145 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES

For Jerry J. Devis, et al. 

Kerrie K. Matre 

Joseph L. Beyke 

Matre & Beyke Co., LPA 

Conrey Business Center 

11800 Conrey Road 

Suite 200 

Cincinnati, Ohio 45249 

F. Harrison Green 

4015 Executive Park Drive 

Suite 105 

Cincinnati, Ohio 45241 

Francis P. Manning 

Western Reserve Law Building 

7556 Mentor Avenue 

Mentor, Ohio 44060 

For Rosine M. Botten
3

Robert E. Goff, Jr. 

Weston Hurd, LLP 

The Tower at Erieview 

1301 East Ninth Street, Suite 1900 

Cleveland, Ohio 44114-2241 

For Pineview Court Condominium Association, et al.

Brian P. Downey 

Jennifer E. Schwartz 

Schwartz, Downey & Co., LPA 

1616 Guildhall 

45 West Prospect Avenue 

Cleveland, Ohio 44115 

Robert J. Koeth 

Koeth, Rice & Leo Co., LPA 

1280 West Third Street 

Third Floor 

Cleveland, Ohio 44113-1514 

For Specialized Construction Inc. 

Richard E. Herthneck 

Richard E. Herthneck Co., LPA 

20220 Center Ridge Road 

Suite 304 

Rocky River, Ohio 44116 

For Willoughby Supply Co. 

Cari Fusco Evans 

Fischer, Evans, Robbins Ltd. 

4505 Stephen Circle, N.W. 

Suite 100 

Canton, Ohio 44718 
4

KENNETH A. ROCCO, J.: 

{¶ 1} Defendants-appellants Gemini Development Group and R.E. Warner & 

Associates1

 appeal from the order of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas that 

“granted in part and denied in part” the motion for certification that plaintiffs-appellees 

Jerry J. Devis and Michael A. Duvall filed pursuant to Civ.R. 23.1.2

{¶ 2} Appellants present two assignments of error that challenge the propriety of 

the trial court’s order. However, since the order is not final, this appeal is dismissed. 

{¶ 3} The facts are briefly summarized to illustrate this court’s decision to dismiss 

this appeal. Appellees, owners of two condominium units, filed an amended complaint 

against their condominium association, the members of the association’s Board of 

Managers, all of the other owners, and certain contractors; appellants were among the 

foregoing. 

{¶ 4} Appellees brought causes of action seeking certification, and for declaratory 

judgment, breach of contract, breach of duty to repair common areas, breach of duty to 

maintain reserves, breach of fiduciary duty, civil conspiracy, and waste. As to 

appellants, appellees alleged they breached contracts made with the association. 

Appellants additionally brought individual claims against the Board and its officers, and 

 1The trial court referred to appellants below as two of the “commercial 

defendants.”

2 Civ.R. 23.1 permits corporate shareholders to file derivative actions to 

enforce a right of the corporation that the corporation itself refuses to enforce. 
5

requested the court appoint a receiver to oversee the business of the association during the 

pendency of the action. 

{¶ 5} After the defendants filed their answers to the amended complaint, 

appellees subsequently filed a separate Civ.R. 23.1 motion for certification. Many of the 

defendants filed briefs in opposition to appellees’ motion.3

 The trial court heard oral 

argument on the matter before issuing its opinion.4

{¶ 6} In relevant part, the trial court stated in its opinion as follows: 

{¶ 7} “Plaintiffs allege damage to their condominium units from damage/defects 

in the common property owned as tenants in common by all unit owners (23 total) 

through the Pineview Court Condominium Association, Inc. (wall, foundations, footers, 

drainage, driveways, etc). Plaintiffs also complain the common property surrounding 

other units (the Association owns 11 separate buildings) has not been properly addressed 

by the Association through its Board and Officers. Attempts to repair have allegedly 

increased the damage, or, at the least, failed to correct the underlying cause * * * . 

Plaintiffs, therefore, seek redress from the commercial defendants [, including 

appellants,] hired by the Association to remediate [sic] these problems. Plaintiffs have 

no ability to cause the necessary repairs as they only own a 1/23 portion of the common 

 3The record reflects that of the two appellants herein, only Gemini filed an 

opposition brief. 

4No transcript was made of this hearing. 
6

property at issue. * * * Thus far, the * * * Board and Officers have refused to * * * make 

claims against [appellants] for their potential responsibility. 

{¶ 8} “* * * 

{¶ 9} “In regard to the derivative action against [appellants], the Court finds that 

plaintiffs have met their burden pursuant to Civ.R. 23.1 * * * . If plaintiffs prevail in 

their suit against [appellants], the remedy sought, money damages, is for the direct benefit 

of all the unit owners. Also, plaintiffs’ personal interests are not greater than the other 

unit owners and plaintiffs would adequately represent all unit owners. 

{¶ 10} “The Court also finds that a derivative action is the only mechanism to 

litigate the Associations’ claims against the [appellants] as individual owners lack privity 

to pursue a direct action against companies hired by the Association. Defendants 

concede this point as well. 

{¶ 11} “Finally, the Association itself argued * * * that a possible resolution to this 

motion would be for the Court to grant the motion for certification as to the [appellants]. 

{¶ 12} “For all these reasons, the Court grants in part the Motion for Certification 

under Civ.R. 23.1 as to all claims against the [appellants] (counts eight through thirteen).” 

{¶ 13} The trial court concluded its opinion by denying appellees’ motion for 

certification with respect to “the Association and its officers and directors for claims 

involving breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty.” 
7

{¶ 14} Appellants filed their notice of appeal from the foregoing order. Although 

appellants present two assignments of error, this court lacks jurisdiction to consider them, 

because the trial court’s order does not constitute a final order pursuant to either R.C. 

2505.02 or Civ.R. 54(B). 

{¶ 15} It is axiomatic that an order must be final before an appellate court has 

jurisdiction to review it. Walburn v. Dunlop, 121 Ohio St.3d 373, 2009-Ohio-1221, 904 

N.E.2d 863, ¶13, citing Gen. Acc. Ins. Co. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am. (1989), 44 Ohio St.3d 17, 

540 N.E.2d 266. A final order is one that disposes of either the whole case or some 

separate and distinct branch thereof. Noble v. Colwell (1989), 44 Ohio St.3d 92, 94, 540 

N.E.2d 1381. If an order from which an appeal is taken is not final and appealable, the 

appellate court must dismiss the appeal. Niehaus v. Columbus Maennerchor, Franklin 

App. No. 07AP-1024, 2008-Ohio-4067, ¶16. 

{¶ 16} The Supreme Court of Ohio set forth a two-step analysis for determining 

whether an order is final and appealable. Walburn. First, the appellate court must 

determine whether the order constitutes a final order as defined by R.C. 2505.02. If the 

order meets the statutory definition, the court then must determine whether Civ.R. 54(B) 

language is required and, if so, whether the order contains a certification that “there is no 

just reason for delay.” As in this case, when an order adjudicates fewer than all claims, it 

must meet the requirements of both R.C. 2505.02 and Civ.R. 54(B). Id. 
8

{¶ 17} The trial court order from which appellants appeal, therefore, must fit into 

at least one of the categories set forth in R.C. 2505.02(B) to be final. Noble at 96. In 

pertinent part, R.C. 2505.02(B) defines a final order as one that either “affects a 

substantial right in an action that in effect determines the action and prevents a 

judgment,” or that “affects a substantial right made in a special proceeding or upon a 

summary application in an action after judgment.” 

{¶ 18} The supreme court explained the terms used in R.C. 2505.02(B) by stating: 

{¶ 19} “In Polikoff v. Adam (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 100, 616 N.E.2d 213, we 

considered the question of what constitutes a final order in a special proceeding. We held, 

‘Orders that are entered in actions that were recognized at common law or in equity and 

were not specially created by statute are not orders entered in special proceedings pursuit 

to R.C. 2505.02.’ Id. at syllabus. We later clarified that ‘[i]t is the underlying action that 

must be examined to determine whether an order was entered in a special proceeding. 

Walters v. Enrichment Ctr. of Wishing Well, Inc. (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 118, 121-122, 676 

N.E.2d 890.” Walburn, ¶19. 

{¶ 20} In this case, appellees filed a shareholder derivative suit that alleged 

appellants breached a contract they made with the association. Shareholder derivative 

actions are recognized in equity and are not special proceedings. Polikoff. An action 

alleging breach of contract, obviously, also is one that is recognized at common law. 

{¶ 21} Moreover, Civ.R. 54 provides in pertinent part: 
9

“(B) Judgment upon multiple claims or involving multiple parties

{¶ 22} “When more than one claim for relief is presented in an action * * *, or 

when multiple parties are involved, the court may enter final judgment as to one or more 

but fewer than all of the claims or parties only upon an express determination that there is 

no just reason for delay. In the absence of [such] a determination * * *, any order * * * 

which adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all 

the parties, shall not terminate the action as to any of the claims or parties, and the order 

or other form of decision is subject to revision at any time before the entry of judgment 

adjudicating all the claims and the rights and liabilities of all the parties.” (Emphasis 

added.) 

{¶ 23} In this case, the trial court added no Civ.R. 54(B) language to its order, and 

the order simply permitted some of appellees’ claims, such as those against appellants, to 

proceed. This failed to either affect any of appellants’ “substantial rights,” or actually 

determine appellees’ claims against appellants. 

{¶ 24} Accordingly, appellants have sought to challenge a nonfinal order over 

which this court lacks jurisdiction. Polikoff. 

Appeal dismissed. 

It is ordered that appellees recover from appellants costs herein taxed. 

The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. 
10

It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to said court to carry this judgment into 

execution. 

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of 

the Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

______________________________ 

KENNETH A. ROCCO, JUDGE 

PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, P.J., and 

FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., J., CONCUR