Court Opinion

ID: 9925780
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-22 22:06:58.4433+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:32.457746
License: Public Domain

[Cite as Slodov v. Eagle Ridge Subdivision Property Owners Assn., Inc., 2024-Ohio-143.]

                 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                           ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                 GEAUGA COUNTY

LEONARD H. SLODOV, MBA, DMD,                           CASE NO. 2023-G-0021

                 Plaintiff-Appellant,
                                                       Civil Appeal from the
        - vs -                                         Chardon Municipal Court

EAGLE RIDGE SUBDIVISION
PROPERTY OWNERS                                        Trial Court No. 2023 CV I 00300
ASSOCIATION INC., et al.,

                 Defendants-Appellees.

                                              OPINION

                                     Decided: January 16, 2024
                                        Judgment: Affirmed

Leonard H. Slodov, MBA, DMD, pro se, 13510 Braeburn Lane, Novelty, OH 44072
(Plaintiff-Appellant)

Mark A. Greer and Rachel L. Bagnolo, Gallagher Sharp, LLP, 1215 Superior Avenue,
7th Floor, Cleveland, OH 44114 (For Defendant-Appellee, Eagle Ridge Subdivision
Property Owners Association Inc.).

Steven M. Ott, Ott & Associates Co., LPA, 1300 East Ninth Street, Suite 1520,
Cleveland, OH 44114 (For Defendant-Appellee, Ott & Associates Co., LPA).

ROBERT J. PATTON, J.

        {¶1}     Appellant, Leonard H. Slodov (“Slodov”), appeals the decision of the

Chardon Municipal Court, dismissing his complaint on the grounds of collateral estoppel

and res judicata. For the following reasons, we affirm.

        {¶2}     This case stems from facts and circumstances involving a case previously

adjudicated in the Geauga County Court of Common Pleas (“Geauga County Case”). The
Geauga County Case, Trial Court No. 2022 P 000052, involved appellant, Leonard

Slodov, and appellees, Eagle Ridge Subdivision Property Owners Association, Inc.

(“Eagle Ridge”).

      {¶3}   Slodov owns and resides at a property located in Novelty, Ohio. The

property is part of an allotment self-governed by Eagle Ridge, a planned community,

otherwise known as a homeowner’s association. The central issue litigated in the Geauga

County Case was the validity of the election of the governing board of Eagle Ridge for the

2022 term year.

      {¶4}   Slodov was a member of the Eagle Ridge board for 11 years until November

of 2021, when he was not re-elected for the 2022 term year. In his complaint in the

Geauga County Case, Slodov challenged that election, held in November of 2021, for the

Eagle Ridge board. Slodov alleged that the three elected board members (Tod Bemak,

Scott Martin, and Gavin Mitchell) violated the association’s bylaws when it held a secret

ballot without providing the applicable bylaw rules to homeowners. Slodov argued that in

doing so, the elected board members also violated R.C. 5312.13, which creates a cause

of action for non-compliance with a homeowner’s association’s bylaws.

      {¶5}   Slodov sought injunctive relief, requesting the removal the three board

members from office and reinstate Slodov as a board member. Slodov also sought

compensatory damages of $640 for the cost of preparing and filing a complaint, and

$41,000 in punitive damages for the board members’ conduct.

      {¶6}   Eagle Ridge filed a motion for summary judgment in the Geauga County

Case on December 9, 2022. In its motion, Eagle Ridge argued that the issue had become

moot because the 2022 term year had expired, and the board had already held elections

                                            2

Case No. 2023-G-0021
for the 2023 term year. Because the disputed election term expired, the subject of

Slodov’s claim in the trial court ceased to exist, rendering the relief Slodov sought

(removal of the board and reinstatement of his own position) no longer possible.

        {¶7}   Up to this point, Slodov had been acting entirely pro se. Slodov hired an

attorney and through counsel, Slodov filed an opposition to Eagle Ridge’s motion for

summary judgment on March 15, 2023, in the Geauga County Case. Slodov asserted

that because the 2022 board members were illegally elected, they became disqualified to

run for subsequent elections. Thus, Slodov argued, his issue was not moot.

        {¶8}   On April 7, 2023, the trial court in the Geauga County Case granted Eagle

Ridge’s motion for summary judgment and found Slodov’s request for injunctive relief was

in fact moot. The trial court denied Slodov’s claims for damages. The trial court explained

in its order that the fees for preparing and filing a complaint, and other office costs

associated with bringing his claim, cannot be recovered through compensatory damages.

The trial court further explained, without compensatory damages, punitive damages

cannot attach.

        {¶9}   Slodov again acting pro se, appealed the order of the Geauga County Court

of Common Pleas to this Court, in Slodov v. Eagle Ridge Subdivision Property Owner’s

Assn., Inc., 2023-Ohio-3688. This Court affirmed the order of the Geauga County Court

of Common Pleas granting summary judgment in favor of Eagle Ridge on October 10,

2023.

        {¶10} On April 13, 2023, Slodov filed a new complaint in the Chardon Municipal

Court Small Claims Division. In his complaint, Slodov sought $6,000 for the cost of suing

Eagle Ridge in the Geauga County Case, plus 10% interest and costs.

                                            3

Case No. 2023-G-0021
      {¶11} Slodov’s complaint disputed the following issues: (1) the validity of a lien

placed on Slodov’s property by Eagle Ridge for unpaid assessments, (2) asserted again,

that the Eagle Ridge board members violated association bylaws and R.C. 5312.13, (3)

alleged that the 2022 term year board members’ actions during the pendency of the

Geauga County Case were abuse of power, retaliation, harassment, extortion, and unjust

enrichment.

      {¶12} Attached as an exhibit to his complaint, Slodov included a letter he wrote,

addressed to Ott & Associates, the law firm employed by Eagle Ridge to collect Slodov’s

delinquent assessment fees. In his letter, dated December 8, 2022, Slodov disputed the

assessment fees, and argued that because the board members were elected in violation

of the association’s bylaws that they do not have the authority to collect. Slodov asserted

further that the board members were selectively enforcing the bylaws of their choosing by

attempting to collect fees from him.

      {¶13} During the pendency of the Geauga County Case, Slodov neglected to pay

Eagle Ridge’s property owner’s assessment fees. Eagle Ridge sent Slodov’s account to

collections for non-payment utilizing the services of Ott & Associates. When collection

attempts failed, Eagle Ridge placed a lien on Slodov’s property.

      {¶14} On May 4, 2023, Eagle Ridge filed a counterclaim to Slodov’s complaint,

for $2,420.50 ($1,810.50 for late assessment fees, plus the legal fees associated with

collecting on the late assessment fees). According to Eagle Ridge’s statement summary,

attached to its counterclaim, Slodov did not pay annual assessments of $350.00 for the

years of 2022 or 2023, incurring numerous late fee charges and additional costs for legal

fees for attempts to collect the assessment fees.

                                            4

Case No. 2023-G-0021
        {¶15} On May 17, 2023, Eagle Ridge filed a motion to transfer the Chardon small

claims case to the regular docket of the Chardon Municipal Court, arguing that: (1)

Slodov’s claims are barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel, (2) that the small claims

court does not have jurisdiction to grant declaratory judgment, (3) discovery is necessary,

and (4) that Eagle Ridge wants to preserve its right to a trial by jury. Attached as an exhibit

to Eagle Ridge’s Motion to Transfer was Slodov’s complaint from the Geauga County

Case.

        {¶16} A hearing on Eagle Ridge’s motion to transfer the case to the regular docket

was held on May 25, 2023. At the hearing, Slodov presented to the court for filing his

Plaintiff’s Statement Opposing Defendants’ Motion and Objection with Sanction Request. 1

        {¶17} In Slodov’s Statement Opposing Defendants’ Motion and Objection with

Sanction Request, he again argues that the Eagle Ridge board members violated the

association bylaws, thereby violating Ohio law, and wrongfully removed him from the

board. Slodov argues that he relied detrimentally on Ott & Associates’ collection letter

purporting the collection attempt to be separate from the Geauga County Case.

Additionally, in his Statement, Slodov requested sanctions against Eagle Ridge, the

discharge of the lien against his home, $6,000 in compensatory damages, $12,000 in

punitive damages, and denial of Eagle Ridge’s counterclaim.

        {¶18} A Magistrate’s Decision was filed on May 25, 2023, with a recommendation

of dismissing the case on the grounds of collateral estoppel and res judicata.

1. According to transcripts, the Statement appeared to be taken by someone in the courtroom to be
   time-stamped at some point during the hearing.
                                                 5

Case No. 2023-G-0021
         {¶19} Slodov filed an Objection to Magistrate’s Decision on May 31, 2023. In his

Objection, Slodov argued the Magistrate’s Decision disregards Slodov’s reliance on Ott

& Associate’s assertion that the collection attempt was separate from the Geauga County

Case. Slodov contended that by filing an appeal in the Geauga County Case, that Geauga

County Common Pleas Court lost jurisdiction, and that if the collection attempt was part

of the Geauga County Case and not a new and separate claim, then Eagle Ridge was at

fault for not merging it with that case.

         {¶20} A judgment entry overruling Slodov’s objection and adopting the

Magistrate’s decision was filed on June 12, 2023, and the case was dismissed.

         {¶21} Slodov timely filed this appeal to the June 12, 2023 judgment entry of the

Chardon Municipal Court and asserts three assignments of error.

         {¶22} Slodov’s first two assignments of error are substantially the same and will

be simultaneously analyzed below.

                              First and Second Assignments of Error

         {¶23} Appellant’s first assignment of error states:

                  The trial court committed prejudicial error in dismissing
                  plaintiff-appellant’s, Leonard H Slodov’s, complaint against
                  Eagle Ridge Corp and Ott & Associates not on the merits
                  without a trial thereby allowing their non-judicial collection lien
                  to remain of public record on plaintiff-appellant’s home when
                  defendant Eagle Ridge Corp’s collection claim was a new
                  claim represented in writing by their collection firm, defendant
                  Ott & Associates, to be ‘entirely separate’ from an ongoing
                  case between the parties in another court. The dismissal
                  decision erroneously concluded that equitable estoppel did
                  not apply to bar Eagle Ridge Corp from raising new,
                  contradictory, oral, affirmative defenses during a ten-minute
                  hearing held in lieu of trial.2

2
 In his briefing and trial court filings, Slodov refers to Eagle Ridge as “Eagle Ridge Corp” several times. However,
the reference is to the same Eagle Ridge Subdivision Property Owners Association Inc., and not a separate entity.
                                                          6

Case No. 2023-G-0021
      {¶24} Appellant’s second assignment of error states:

             The trial court committed prejudicial error in dismissing
             plaintiff-appellant’s, Leonard H Slodov’s, complaint against
             Eagle Ridge Corp and Ott & Associates not on the merits
             without a trial thereby allowing their non-judicial collection lien
             to remain of public record on plaintiff-appellant’s home when
             defendant Eagle Ridge Corp’s collection claim was a new
             claim represented in writing by their collection firm, defendant
             Ott & Associates, to be ‘entirely separate’ from an ongoing
             case between the parties in another court. The dismissal
             decision erroneously concluded that judicial estoppel did not
             apply to bar Eagle Ridge Corp from raising new, contradictory,
             inconsistent, oral, affirmative defenses during a ten-minute
             hearing held in lieu of trial.

      {¶25} In Slodov’s first assignment of error, he raises the following issues:

             (1) Slodov challenges the trial court’s dismissal of his complaint

                without a trial;

             (2) Challenges the trial court in allowing Eagle Ridge’s lien to remain

                on his property;

             (3) He contends that he relied on Ott & Associates’ representation

                that the lien is a separate claim from the Geauga County Case,

                justifying bringing his small claims action; and

             (4) Slodov argues that Eagle Ridge raised new affirmative defenses

                during the hearing held on May 25, 2023.

      {¶26} In Slodov’s second assignment of error, he raises the following issues:

             (1) Slodov again challenges the trial court’s decision to dismiss his

                complaint without a trial;

             (2) Challenges the trial court in allowing Eagle Ridge’s lien to remain

                on his property;
                                             7

Case No. 2023-G-0021
              (3) Contends that Ott & Associate’s collection attempt is a new claim

                 separate from the Geauga County Case; and,

              (4) Further argues that judicial estoppel should have barred Eagle

                 Ridge from raising new affirmative defenses during the hearing

                 held on May 25, 2023.

       {¶27} The trial court dismissed Slodov’s claim based on principles of res judicata

and collateral estoppel. In his complaint in the Chardon Municipal Court Small Claims

Division, under “Statement of Claim,” Slodov wrote the following:

              12 year volunteer Trustee/19 year member Plaintiff has
              refuted in writing amount filed as a lien on the grounds that
              Ohio law 5312.13 was violated multiple times by the
              defendants who, on November 16, 2021 illegally removed
              Plaintiff Trustee violating bylaws 4.03 and 3.05, 3.08 and 4.02
              and interfered with corporate duties before their 2022 term
              began. Plaintiff sued in Common Pleas Court seeking
              defendants’ removal, costing $6,000. As of March 9, 2023 lien
              filing date, case 22P000052 was ongoing. Eagle Ridge has
              no HOA collection policy. Lien filed enforcing bylaw authority
              by Ohio law breakers during ongoing litigation is abuse of
              power, retaliation, harassment and by definition may
              constitute extortion for unjust enrichment.

       {¶28} It appears that Slodov’s complaint in small claims court asserted the

following issues: (1) Slodov refutes the lien placed on his property by Eagle Ridge, (2) the

2022 board members of Eagle Ridge violated 5312.13, (3) the 2022 board members

violated bylaws and removed Slodov illegally, (4) Slodov seeks $6,000 in recovery for the

costs of bringing the Geauga County Case, (5) and the board members committed abuse

of power, retaliation, harassment, extortion, and were unjustly enriched.

       {¶29} An appellate court reviews application of the doctrines of res judicata and

collateral estoppel under a de novo standard of review. “‘Application of the doctrine of res

                                             8

Case No. 2023-G-0021
judicata/collateral estoppel to a particular issue is a question of law. State ex rel. Davis v.

Pub. Emps. Retirement Bd., 174 Ohio App.3d 135, 2007-Ohio-6594, 881 N.E.2d 294 ¶

41 (10th Dist.). Accordingly, it is reviewed under a denovo standard of review, i.e., without

deference to the lower court’s decision. Rossow v. Ravenna, 11th Dist. Portage No. 2001-

P-0036, 2002-WL 480061 (Mar. 29, 2002).’ State v. Hill, 177 Ohio App.3d 171, 2008-

Ohio-3509, 894 N.E.2d 108, ¶ 37 (11th Dist.).” Lycan v. Cleveland, 171 Ohio St.3d 550,

2022-Ohio-4676, 218 N.E.3d 913, ¶ 21.

       {¶30} In Carson v. Holmes, 11th Dist. Portage No. 2010-P-0007, 2010-Ohio-4199,

¶ 40, this Court noted the purpose and recounted the scope of small claims court:

              “‘( * * * )(T)he goal of small claims court is (* * *) to provide fast
              and fair adjudication as an alternative to the traditional judicial
              proceedings. For example, attorneys may appear, but are not
              required to appear, on behalf of any party in small
              claims matters. R.C.1925.01(D). [* * *] The hearings are
              simplified, as neither the Ohio Rules of Evidence nor the Ohio
              Rules of Civil Procedure apply. See Evid.R. 101(C)(8); Civ.R.
              1(C)(4). Thus, by design, proceedings in small claims courts
              are informal and geared to allowing individuals to resolve
              uncomplicated disputes quickly and inexpensively. Pro se
              activity is assumed and encouraged. The process is an
              alternative to full-blown judicial dispute resolution.’ “ Powers
              v. Gawry, 11th Dist. No.2009–G–2883, 2009–Ohio5061, at ¶
              12, quoting Cleveland Bar Ass'n v. Pearlman, 106 Ohio St.3d
              136, 832 N.E.2d 1193, 2005–Ohio–4107, at ¶ 15.

       {¶31} Summary judgment was granted in favor of Eagle Ridge in the Geauga

County Case, denying compensatory damages for the costs of preparing and bringing a

complaint, punitive damages, and determining that because a new election was held for

the 2023 term year, Slodov’s claims had become moot.

       {¶32} In reviewing Slodov’s claims filed in the Geauga County Case and

comparing them with the claims asserted on the face of Slodov’s complaint in the Chardon

                                                9

Case No. 2023-G-0021
Municipal Court, it appears that Slodov is attempting to relitigate the same claims and

issues regarding the allegations he made in the Geauga County Case.

       {¶33} The doctrine of res judicata bars litigants from reasserting claims that have

already been litigated. This Court noted in Black v. Girard, 11th Dist. No. 2021-T-0061,

207 N.E.3d 131, 2023-Ohio-266, ¶ 14:

              The doctrine of res judicata provides that “[a] valid, final
              judgment rendered upon the merits bars all subsequent
              actions based upon any claim arising out of the transaction or
              occurrence that was the subject matter of the previous
              action.” Grava[v. Parkman Twp.], 73 Ohio St.3d 379, 653
              N.E.2d 226, at syllabus.

       {¶34} The doctrine of collateral estoppel further bars litigants from asserting

issues that directly stem from, and therefore were required to be asserted during a prior

action. This Court recently noted in Morgan v. Natale, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2021-T-

0038, 2022-Ohio-1281, ¶ 90:

              Collateral estoppel precludes the litigation in a second action
              of an issue that has been actually and necessarily litigated
              and determined in a prior action which was based on a
              different cause of action. Davis v. Eachus, 4th Dist. Pike No.
              04CA725, 2004-Ohio-5720, ¶ 26.

       {¶35} While Slodov asserts a new cause of action in small claims court, in so

much as he refutes the lien placed on his property by Eagle Ridge for the first time, the

arguments he uses to support that new claim are the same issues he raised in the Geauga

County Case. As mentioned above, Slodov wrote in his contention that the grounds for

his dispute of the lien is “that Ohio law 5312.13 was violated multiple times by the

defendants, who * * * illegally removed [me] * * * violating bylaws * * *.” The grounds that

Slodov stated as the basis of his small claims court case were the same issues brought

in his Geauga County Case complaint. The remedy that Slodov seeks in small claims
                                            10

Case No. 2023-G-0021
court, in Slodov’s own words, is for the cost he incurred bringing the Geauga County

Case, “Plaintiff sued in Common Pleas Court seeking defendants’ removal, costing

$6,000.”

       {¶36} Necessarily, to challenge the lien via the authority of the board members

who imposed assessments on Slodov’s property during the 2022 term year, Slodov must

challenge the validity of the board’s election. Slodov had the opportunity to challenge the

authority of the board in the Common Pleas Court in the Geauga County Case. It was

determined on summary judgment that when new elections were conducted, the issue

had become moot as to Slodov’s request for injunctive relief. As it stands today, that issue

remains moot.

       {¶37} It was further decided on summary judgment that the costs to litigate the

Geauga County Case that Slodov requested in the form of compensatory damages were

not compensatory. Without compensatory damages, punitive damages could not attach.

Therefore, at this stage, Slodov’s ability to dispute the board’s authority as duly elected

members ceases to exist, and what residual claim he had for damages has been fully

decided and adjudicated.

       {¶38} Slodov is attempting to re-litigate the Geauga County Case through his

complaint filed in the Chardon Municipal Court Small Claims Division. Res judicata and

collateral estoppel bar Slodov from relitigating the same claims and issues that were

already adjudicated in the Geauga County Common Pleas Court. The trial court properly

dismissed Slodov’s complaint.

                                            11

Case No. 2023-G-0021
         {¶39} Slodov further contends, in his third issue raised in his first and second

assignments of error, that he relied on Ott & Associates’ representation that the collection

attempt was a separate claim from the Geauga County Case.

         {¶40} R.C. Section 5312.12 grants authority to an Ohio Planned Community to

impose a lien upon property owners who do not pay assessment fees. By function of

Slodov owning a lot within the Eagle Ridge community, he was subject to assessments

by the association, and subject to the duties of paying those assessment fees,

independent of his dispute with the board members.

         {¶41} As previously stated, for Slodov to argue that the board members had no

authority to collect assessment fees from him on behalf of the association because of

their illegal status as board members, is to make an argument entirely based on conduct

occurring in the November 2021 board election. To make this assertion now, Slodov must

raise the same issues that were already resolved in the Geauga County Case. Had

Slodov wanted to argue the validity of the fees and the lien predicated on the theory that

the board members lacked authority, he was under obligation to do so in his original action

filed with the Geauga County Common Pleas Court. Accordingly, this action is also

barred.

         {¶42} Slodov’s fourth issue in his first assignment of error, is that Eagle Ridge

raised new affirmative defenses during the hearing held on May 25, 2023.

         {¶43} There is no obligation in small claims court to raise affirmative defenses. As

mentioned in Carson, 2010-Ohio-4199, above, traditional rules of Civil Procedure do not

apply.

                                              12

Case No. 2023-G-0021
       {¶44} For the above stated reasons, Slodov’s first and second assignments of

error are without merit.

                              Third Assignment of Error

       {¶45} Appellant’s third assignment of error states: “The trial court committed

prejudicial error in allowing the defendants-appellees’ second law firm, Gallagher Sharp,

to argue at the hearing when Mr. Greer had failed to file a written notice of appearance

as counsel, had not been named as collection agent by Eagle Ridge Corp, had not filed

the counter-claim, and had treated the collection matter as entirely separate from case

22P000052 since January 2022 and when defendants-appellees had directed their first

law firm, Ott & Associates, to work on collections separately during 2022 and 2023.”

       {¶46} Slodov’s third assignment of error raises the following issues:

                 (1) That the trial court committed error in allowing Gallagher Sharp to

                     argue at the May 25, 2023, hearing when they failed to file a notice

                     of appearance; and

                 (2) Slodov disputes that Gallagher Sharp was not the attorney hired to

                     collect from Slodov, and that Ott & Associates’ should have instead

                     represented Eagle Ridge; and Slodov further argues that

                 (3) The collection attempt is separate from the Geauga County Case.

       {¶47} Eagle Ridge was under no obligation to use Ott & Associates’ as their

counsel in small claims court. Parties are free to choose their own counsel, or represent

themselves pro se, at their own discretion.

       {¶48} As mentioned above, this Court noted in Carson, that small claims court is

a unique forum intended to expedite small claims. Attorneys may appear, but are not
                                              13

Case No. 2023-G-0021
required to appear, on behalf of parties in small claims court. While Chardon Municipal

Court’s Local Rule 12 does require a written, filed, notice of appearance of counsel, Ohio

courts have held that a failure to file a notice of appearance is not reversible error where

it does not prejudice the appellant. See Bank of Am., N.A. v. Singh, 12th Dist. No.

CA2012-07-146, 2013-Ohio-1305, ¶ 10.

       {¶49} Here, there is no indication that the trial court’s acceptance of Eagle Ridge’s

counsel, without a formal notice of appearance, prejudiced the outcome of Slodov’s case.

Slodov’s third assignment of error, is without merit.

       {¶50} For these reasons, we affirm the decision of the Chardon Municipal Court.

EUGENE A. LUCCI, P.J.,

JOHN J. EKLUND, J.,

concur.

                                            14

Case No. 2023-G-0021