[Cite as Miller Lakes Community Servs. Assn., Inc. v. Schmitt, 2012-Ohio-5116.]

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

 )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF WAYNE ) 

MILLER LAKES COMMUNITY 

SERVICES ASSOCIATION, INC. 

 Appellant 

 v. 

WOLFGANG R. SCHMITT, et al. 

 Appellees 

C.A. No. 11CA0053 

APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT 

ENTERED IN THE 

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 

COUNTY OF WAYNE, OHIO 

CASE No. 08-CV-0521 

DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

Dated: November 5, 2012 

 

MOORE, Judge. 

{¶1} Plaintiff, Miller Lakes Community Services Association, Inc. (“Miller Lakes”), 

appeals from the judgment of the Wayne County Court of Common Pleas. This Court dismisses 

the appeal for lack of a final, appealable order. 

I. 

{¶2} Miller Lakes is a homeowners’ association that owns a tract of land upon which 

Miller Lake Road is located. The Appellees, Wolfgang and Toni Schmitt, David and Becky 

Wigham, and Richard and Norma Cooper, as trustees of the Cooper Family Trust, utilize Miller 

Lake Road, but are not members of Miller Lakes. However, the Appellees’ respective property 

deeds grant them an easement to use the road. In consideration for the easement, the Schmitts’ 

deed provides that the Schmitts would, 

[P]ay one-fourth (1/4) of the cost of maintaining that portion of Miller Lake Road 

* * * over which [the Schmitts] have an easement, including but not limited to 

road surfacing and other maintenance, and snow removal, and to mow and trim 
2 

 

both sides of that portion of Miller Lake Road over which [the Schmitts] have an 

easement, at [their] sole expense. 

The remaining Appellees’ deeds imposed no such obligation in consideration for the easement. 

{¶3} In 2008, Miller Lakes sent invoices to the Appellees for a share of the cost of the 

maintenance and repair work done to Miller Lake Road. The Appellees refused to pay the 

invoices, and Miller Lakes filed a complaint in part seeking declaratory judgment that Appellees 

“are required to share proportionately in accordance with their ownership interest, all costs and 

expenses necessary to maintain, repair and/or replace the shared benefits described in the 

complaint and for such further declaratory relief as may be deemed necessary to clarify as a 

matter of record title the nature and extent of said benefits and services.” Miller Lakes described 

these “shared benefits” to include “access to and use of water lines, sewer lines (except [the] 

Schmitt[s]), water hydrants, utilities, and other benefits such as benefits in the form of fire and 

emergency response access and law enforcement access and protection[.]” 

{¶4} The Schmitts and the Wighams filed counterclaims, in which they sought, in part, 

declaratory judgment relative to the easement. The Schmitts sought declaratory judgment “(i) 

that [ ] Miller Lake[s] may not charge any maintenance fee or related expenses or costs to the 

Schmitts, (ii) that the Schmitts are entitled to be reimbursed for their expenses in maintaining and 

repairing Miller Lake Road and related areas, and (iii) that [ ]Miller Lake[s] has a duty to 

maintain portions of Miller Lake Road and related areas including but not limited to the drainage 

ditch and pipe.” The Schmitts further set forth claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, 

adverse possession, and deed reformation. In their counterclaim, the Wighams requested the trial 

court to determine that they had “no obligation to pay and are not legally bound to [ ] Miller 

Lakes [] for any maintenance fees, costs or related expenses incurred by Miller Lakes for the 
3 

 

maintenance and upkeep of any common areas and related services located in or around Miller 

Lake[ R]oad[.]” The Wighams further set forth a claim alleging unjust enrichment. 

{¶5} Thereafter, Miller Lakes filed a motion for summary judgment against the 

Appellees on its claims, against the Schmitts on each of their counterclaims, and against the 

Wighams on their counterclaim for declaratory judgment. The Wighams moved for summary 

judgment against Miller Lakes on its claims against them and on their claim for declaratory 

judgment. The Schmitts also moved for summary judgment against Miller Lakes on its claims 

against them. On November 19, 2009, the trial court issued an order purporting to grant 

judgment in favor of the Appellees on Miller Lakes’ claims and in favor of Miller Lakes on the 

Appellees’ counterclaims. The trial court then purported to dismiss the complaint and 

counterclaims. Miller Lakes appealed, and the Wighams cross-appealed from this order. This 

Court dismissed the appeals for lack of a final, appealable order, as we determined that the trial 

court had failed to declare the rights and obligations of the parties in regard to the claims for 

declaratory judgment. Miller Lakes Community Servs. Assn. v. Schmitt (Miller Lakes I), 9th Dist. 

No. 09CA0076, 2011-Ohio-1295. 

{¶6} Thereafter, the trial court prepared a journal entry wherein it purported to declare 

the rights and obligations of the parties. Miller Lakes timely appealed from this entry and 

presents eight assignments of error for our review, which we decline to reproduce here. 

II. 

{¶7} As we stated in our decision dismissing Miller Lakes’ first attempted appeal in 

2011, 

[T]his Court is obligated to raise sua sponte questions related to our jurisdiction. 

Whitaker-Merrell Co. v. Geupel Constr. Co., Inc., 29 Ohio St.2d 184, 186 (1972). 

This Court has jurisdiction to hear appeals only from final judgments. Article IV, 

Section 3(B)(2), Ohio Constitution; R.C. 2501.02. In the absence of a final, 
4 

 

appealable order, this Court must dismiss the appeal for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction. Lava Landscaping, Inc. v. Rayco Mfg., Inc., 9th Dist. No. 2930-M, 

2000 WL 109108 (Jan. 26, 2000). 

Miller Lakes I at ¶ 12. Further, an order that fails to rule “on all of the issues surrounding the 

award, ‘leaving nothing outstanding for future determination,’” is not a final, appealable order. 

Carnegie Cos., Inc. v. Summit Properties, Inc., 183 Ohio App.3d 770, 2009-Ohio-4655, ¶ 18 (9th 

Dist.), quoting State v. Muncie, 91 Ohio St.3d 440, 446 (2001). Here, after a review of the 

record, we conclude that the trial court’s judgment entry was not a final appealable order because 

(1) it failed to sufficiently declare the parties’ rights and obligations with respect to the claims for 

declaratory judgment, and (2) it failed to properly dispose of claims which were intertwined with 

the claims for declaratory judgment. We will address these issues separately. 

Declaratory Judgment

{¶8} Miller Lakes, the Schmitts, and the Wighams each sought declaratory judgment in 

regard to their respective obligations and rights regarding the easement. Where a party requests 

a declaratory judgment, “[C]ourts of record may declare rights, status, and other legal relations 

whether or not further relief is or could be claimed. * * * The declaration may be either 

affirmative or negative in form and effect. The declaration has the effect of a final judgment or 

decree.” R.C. 2721.02(A). In Miller Lakes I at ¶ 15, we cited Judge Dickinson’s concurring 

opinion in Revis v. Ohio Chamber Ballet, 9th Dist. No. 24696, 2010-Ohio-2201 ¶ 38, for the 

proposition that, “[i]n order to properly enter judgment in a declaratory judgment action, the trial 

court must set forth its construction of the disputed document or law, and must expressly declare 

the parties’ respective rights and obligations. If the trial court fails to fulfill these requirements, 

its judgment is not final and appealable.” We then determined that the trial court had “failed to 
5 

 

declare any rights and/or obligations of the parties,” with respect to the claims for declaratory 

judgment in its 2009 entry. Miller Lakes I at ¶ 16. 

{¶9} Upon our review of the trial court’s 2011 journal entry at issue in the instant 

appeal, we first note that, in regard to the trial court’s “construction of the disputed document or 

law,” the trial court determined that Miller Lakes “has waived its right to enforce the easement 

contained in the deeds and the doctrine of equitable estoppel prevents the enforcement of the 

easements.” See Miller Lakes I at ¶ 15. Although this determination appears to resolve Miller 

Lakes’ rights pertaining to the collection of monies from the Schmitts, we cannot discern how 

this determination affects Miller Lakes’ obligation to perform the services at issue or the manner 

in which such a conclusion determines the rights of Appellees to utilize the “shared benefits” 

which arise from these services. Thus, the trial court did not fully “set forth its construction of 

the disputed document or law” upon which the claim and counterclaims for declaratory judgment 

were based. See id. 

{¶10} Next, as to the requirement that the trial court “expressly declare the parties’ 

respective rights and obligations,” the trial court determined the following, 

Miller Lakes * * * does not have the right to charge the [Appellees] a 

proportionate share of the costs related to the maintenance of Miller Lake[]Road. 

Miller Lakes remains obligated to continue to maintain and repair the easement 

road and the [Appellees] have a right to enjoy the benefits of the maintenance and 

repair that Miller Lakes is admittedly obligated to perform. Miller Lakes has no 

obligation to reimburse the Schmitts for any maintenance or repair they executed 

on their own accord. Because the [Appellees] have no obligation to Miller Lakes, 

the outstanding claims of special damages, unjust enrichment and quantum meruit 

are moot. 

(Emphasis added.) 

{¶11} Although the trial court declared certain obligations and rights in regard to the 

“road,” it did not expressly declare the scope of Miller Lakes’ obligations beyond maintaining 
6 

 

and repairing the “road” itself, such as whether it is obligated to maintain the ditch and drain pipe 

which run alongside the road, a declaration of which the Schmitts specifically sought in their 

counterclaim. Moreover, it did not expressly determine the scope of the Appellees’ rights to the 

“shared benefits,” as was requested in Miller Lakes’ complaint, beyond those benefits arising 

from services which “Miller Lakes is admittedly obligated to perform.” 

{¶12} Therefore, based upon the forgoing, the trial court’s 2011 judgment entry was 

ineffective in resolving the claim and counterclaims for declaratory judgment, as it did not fully 

set forth the construction of the deeds or the law on which it based its decision, nor did it fully or 

expressly declare the rights and obligations of the parties. 

Intertwined Claims 

{¶13} At the conclusion of its 2011 judgment entry, the trial court dismissed all 

counterclaims with prejudice and set forth that “there is no just reason for delay.” In regard to a 

judgment upon multiple claims or in cases involving multiple parties, Civ.R. 54(B), provides: 

When more than one claim for relief is presented in an action whether as a claim, 

counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, and whether arising out of the 

same or separate transactions, 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 a determination that there is no just reason for delay, any order 

or other form of decision, however designated, 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. 

{¶14} Notwithstanding the trial court’s employment of the language that “there is no just 

cause for delay,” this Court will not review judgments that fail to determine claims that are 

“inextricably intertwined” with the claim(s) upon which the trial court has purported to issue 
7 

 

final judgment. Miller Lakes I at ¶ 19, citing Glenmoore Builders, Inc. v. Smith Family Trust, 

9th Dist. No. 23879, 2008-Ohio-1379, ¶ 16-17. 

{¶15} In Miller Lakes I, we concluded that Miller Lakes’ claims “alleging unjust 

enrichment and quantum meruit are dependent upon the resolution of its claim for declaratory 

relief.” Id. at ¶ 20. However, as we discussed above, the 2011 journal entry did not expressly 

determine the scope of Miller Lakes’ obligations or the rights of the homeowners to enjoy the 

benefits arising from such obligations. As Miller Lakes’ claims for unjust enrichment and 

quantum meruit were dependent upon the Appellees’ rights to utilize the “shared benefits” as set 

forth in its complaint, including access to the utilities maintained by Miller Lakes, the claims for 

unjust enrichment and quantum meruit were intertwined with the determination of the scope of 

the benefits to which Appellees had a right to enjoy. 

{¶16} Additionally, although the appeal before us does not challenge the trial court’s 

ruling on the Wighams’ counterclaim for unjust enrichment which it purported to dismiss 

although it was not subject to the parties’ respective motions for summary judgment, the 

counterclaim was dependent upon a declaration of the parties’ respective rights and obligations 

arising from the deeds. In their counterclaim, the Wighams alleged that they had “performed 

benefits and services on real property owned by Miller Lakes in the form of mowing, fertilizing, 

landscaping, tree trimming, leaf removal and other benefits which improved real property owned 

by Miller Lakes.” Thus, the viability of this claim was dependent upon an express determination 

of Miller Lakes’ obligations in regard to the easement. 

{¶17} Therefore, based upon the dependency of the above claims and counterclaims on 

the express declaration of the parties rights and obligations, the Civ.R. 54(B) language was 
8 

 

ineffectual to create an immediately appealable order when the claims and counterclaim 

remained pending. 

III. 

{¶18} Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed for want of a final appealable order. 

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 to Appellant. 

 

 CARLA MOORE 

 FOR THE COURT 

WHITMORE, P. J. 

CARR, J. 

CONCUR.

APPEARANCES:

JAMES M. RICHARD, Attorney at Law, for Appellant. 

TIMOTHY B. PETTORINI, Attorney at Law, for Appellees. 

ROBERT J. REYNOLDS, Attorney at Law, for Appellees. 

ROBERT D. KEHOE, Attorney at Law, for Appellees.