Ohio Supreme Court, 1997

Winchell v. Burch

Ohio Supreme Court · Decided November 5, 1997 · Cook, Douglas, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Stratton, Sweeney

80 Ohio St. 3d 1209

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

Winchell v. Burch (Ohio 1997)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

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.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.