Winchell v. Burch

Ohio Supreme Court
Winchell v. Burch, 80 Ohio St. 3d 1209 (Ohio 1997)
Cook, Douglas, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Stratton, Sweeney

Winchell v. Burch

Opinion of the Court

The appeal in case No. 96-2268 is dismissed, sua sponte, as having been improvidently allowed.

There being no conflict, the cause in case No. 96-2334 is dismissed, sua sponte, as having been improvidently certified. S.Ct.Prac.R. IV(2)(B); Whitelock v. Gilbane Bldg. Co. (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 594, 613 N.E.2d 1032.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer and Cook, JJ., concur. Lundberg Stratton, J., dissents.

Dissenting Opinion

Lundberg Stratton, J.,

dissenting. I respectfully dissent and would find that the addition of the Burches’ new enlarged deck reduced the percentage of ownership of common areas so as to require a unanimous vote of all unit owners to amend the Declaration of Condominium Ownership in compliance with R.C. 5311.04(D). Therefore, I would find that the Second Appellate District’s interpretation of R.C. 5311.04(D) in Falls Homeowners’ Assn., Inc. v. Aveyard (July 27, 1994), Montgomery App. No. 14250, unreported, 1994 WL 409626, is the correct interpretation and would reverse the judgment of the court of appeals in this case.

Reference

Cited By
1 case
Status
Published