Court Opinion

ID: 9925778
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-22 22:06:55.431016+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:32.783428
License: Public Domain

[Cite as Ray v. Lake Royale Landowners Assn., 2024-Ohio-220.]

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

JORDAN RAY,                                          CASE NO. 2023-P-0048

                 Plaintiff-Appellant,
                                                     Civil Appeal from the
        - vs -                                       Court of Common Pleas

THE LAKE ROYALE
LANDOWNERS ASSOCIATION,                              Trial Court No. 2022 CV 00819

                 Defendant-Appellee.

                                        MEMORANDUM
                                          OPINION

                                    Decided: January 19, 2024
                                   Judgment: Appeal dismissed

Jordan Ray, pro se, 1957 West Swan Lake Circle, Kent, OH 44420 (Plaintiff-Appellant).

Craig G. Pelini, and Erin E. Kelly, Pelini, Campbell & Richard, LLC, 8040 Cleveland
Avenue, N.W., Suite 400, North Canton, OH 44720 (For Defendant-Appellee).

ROBERT J. PATTON, J.

        {¶1} Appellant, Jordan Ray (“Ray”), appeals the trial court’s entry adopting the

decision of the magistrate which denied Ray’s request for a preliminary injunction against

appellee, The Lake Royale Landowners Association (“LRLA”). For the following reasons,

we dismiss the appeal for lack of a final order.

        {¶2} Due to the factual circumstances of this case, it is necessary to mention

related case, Portage County Court of Common Pleas Case No. 2021CV00527 (“2021

Case”). In the 2021 Case, LRLA filed a complaint against Billy Dengler (“Dengler”), a
lakefront property owner on Lake Royale. Dengler is not a member of LRLA. LRLA sought

damages and injunctive relief for the alleged trespass and creation of a nuisance by

Dengler on a portion of Lake Royale. Mr. Dengler filed an answer denying that he had

trespassed or created a nuisance and subsequently “filed a counterclaim for declaratory

judgment alleging that he owns land ‘into and beneath a portion of’ Lake Royale.’” Lake

Royale Landowners Assn. v. Dengler, 11th Dist. Portage No. 2022-P-0021, 2022-Ohio-

2929, ¶ 5. Several other landowners owning property abutting Lake Royale filed requests

to intervene, asserting that their property extends into the Lake. Id. at ¶ 7.1 The parties

were able to reach a settlement through mediation in the 2021 case but were unable to

execute the agreement due to Ray’s pending litigation against LRLA, the underlying case

in this appeal. Ray has also filed an appeal from judgments in the 2021 case which is

currently pending in this Court in Case No. 2023-P-0068.

        {¶3} In November 2022, Ray filed a complaint against LRLA seeking a

determination “that LRLA’s Deed restrictions prohibit the transfer of the easements * * *

without the approval of 80% or more of the LRLA lot owners.” Ray also sought to prevent

LRLA’s Board from signing or submitting any court order in the 2021 case, until LRLA

acquired approval of 80% or more of members, and requested a temporary restraining

order and preliminary injunction.

        {¶4} A hearing was held before a magistrate on Ray’s request for a preliminary

injunction on February 24, 2023. Three witnesses testified at the hearing: LRLA’s former

1. This Court reviewed an unrelated issue regarding Attorney Roll’s disqualification as counsel for LRLA.
This Court reversed the trial court’s decision disqualifying him and remanded the matter to the trial court
for further proceedings. Id., at ¶ 37-38.
                                                     2

Case No. 2023-P-0048
counsel, Attorney Stewart Roll, LRLA’s current president, Dena Ferner, and Ray, the

appellant.

        {¶5} The magistrate denied Ray’s motion for preliminary injunction on May 4,

2023. The magistrate concluded “that [Ray] did not prove by clear and convincing

evidence the following: 1) that there is substantial likelihood of the [Ray] prevailing on the

merits in this case; 2) that irreparable injury will occur if the injunction is not granted; 3)

the rights of third parties will not be harmed if the injunction is granted; and 4) the

injunction will serve the public interest.” The magistrate further concluded that “the

Proposed Settlement does not amend the LRLA Deed Restrictions, thus only a majority

vote is necessary for passage.” The magistrate’s decision was accepted by the trial court

on June 7, 2023.

        {¶6} Appellant timely appeals and raises a single assignment of error: “The trial

court erred in issuing a Journal Entry and Order (Order T.d. 27) on May 15, 2023 adopting

the Magistrate’s February 21, 2023, Order (Order T.d. 20) denying Plaintiff's Motion

(Motion T.d. 4) for Injunctive Relief, and approving on June 7, 2023, the Magistrate’s Entry

(Journal Entry T.d. 31).”2

        {¶7}    This case came before the Court for oral argument on November 8, 2023.

Attorney Roll, counsel for Ray in this appeal, sought to withdraw. This Court denied the

initial request for failing to comply with the Local Rules. The Court simultaneously issued

a show cause order requesting the parties to submit responses on whether the decision

on the preliminary injunction constitutes a final appealable order. Ray and appellees filed

their responses on December 18 and December 19, 2023, respectively. In conjunction

2. T.d. 27 was filed on May 5, 2023.
                                              3

Case No. 2023-P-0048
with Ray’s response on the show cause order, Attorney Roll filed an amended motion to

withdraw.

       {¶8} In response to the show cause, Ray argues that the order denying the

preliminary injunction qualifies as a final order. We disagree.

       {¶9} “A preliminary injunction is a provisional remedy, considered interlocutory,

tentative, and impermanent in nature.” Youngstown City School Dist. Bd. of Education v.

State, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 15AP-941, 2017-Ohio-555, ¶ 6 citing, Wells Fargo Ins.

Servs. USA v. Gingrich, 12th Dist. No. CA2011-05-085, 2012-Ohio-677, ¶ 5. As such, the

denial of a preliminary injunction, is not a final, appealable order “unless it meets the two-

part test set forth in R.C. 2505.02(B)(4) governing appeals from the grant or denial of

provisional remedies: ‘(a) The order in effect determines the action with respect to the

provisional remedy and prevents a judgment in the action in favor of the appealing party

with respect to the provisional remedy,’ and ‘(b) The appealing party would not be afforded

a meaningful or effective remedy by an appeal following final judgment as to all

proceedings, issues, claims, and parties in the action.’” (Italics original). Id. at ¶ 6.

       {¶10} Because “the court has issued an order determining the action with respect

to the provisional remedy of a preliminary injunction, and this order prevents a judgment

in favor of appellant with regard to the preliminary injunction,” the first prong has been

satisfied. LCP Holding Co. v. Taylor, 11th Dist. No. 2003-P-0067, 158 Ohio App.3d 546,

2004-Ohio-5324, 817 N.E.2d 439, ¶ 26.

       {¶11} Turning to the second prong, we conclude that upon final judgment,

appellant would be afforded a meaningful or effective remedy by an appeal from the

                                               4

Case No. 2023-P-0048
judgment. As such, this order does not constitute a final, appealable order pursuant to

R.C. 2505.02.

       {¶12} Appellant sought a declaration from the trial court “that LRLA’s Deed

restrictions prohibit the transfer of the easements * * * without the approval of 80% or

more of the LRLA lot owners.” While the magistrate’s decision ultimately determined

otherwise, that ruling was made only regarding the preliminary injunction request.

       {¶13} As this Court noted in Rock House Fitness Inc. v. Himes, 11th Dist. No. 2020-

L-075, 2021-Ohio-245, 167 N.E.3d 499, ¶ 28:

              [T]here is also a fundamental due process concern with
              treating this order as the final judgment on the merits. “Where
              a hearing on an application for a preliminary injunction is to be
              consolidated with a trial on the merits, Civ.R. 65(B)(2) requires
              the court to issue a ‘consolidation’ order before the hearing,
              thus providing the parties with notice that the case is, in fact,
              being heard on the merits.” Turoff v. Stefanac, 16 Ohio App.3d
              227, 475 N.E.2d 189 (8th Dist.1984), paragraph two of the
              syllabus.

       {¶14} Upon review of the record, there was no consolidation order as required.

Thus, the parties were not provided notice that the trial court intended the preliminary

injunction hearing to be a hearing on the merits. As such, the trial court’s decision on the

preliminary injunction is not a final order and the trial court must issue a decision on the

merits.

                                             5

Case No. 2023-P-0048
       {¶15} For the reasons set forth in the memorandum opinion of this Court, it is

ordered that the appeal is hereby dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. This case should

proceed in the trial court for final disposition.

MARY JANE TRAPP, J.,

JOHN J. EKLUND, J.,

concur.

                                                6

Case No. 2023-P-0048