Court Rulings

Trial court's dismissal of property owner's claim against company for illegal removal of trees under R.C. 901.51 was remanded for a determination of whether removal was done "recklessly" and "without privilege." However, property owner's similar claim against neighbor was properly precluded where trial court determined that the parties reached an oral agreement to settle the dispute and there was no evidence that the court abused its discretion in reaching that conclusion.

REPORTED ORDER Granting Motion to Remand Granting [8] Motion to Stay. The plaintiffs claim is REMANDED to the Secretary of the Army, who is directed to submit the matter to the ABCMR. The plaintiff shall apply to the ABCMR by filing a DD Form 149 with the ABCMR on or before 9/4/2020. The ABCMR shall determine by 11/30/2020 whether the Army committed an error or injustice. The defendant shall file by 12/14/2020, a status report. The ABCMR shall render its decision by 2/22/2021. The defendant shall file a status report informing the Court of the ultimate determination of the ABCMR by 3/8/2021. The case is hereby STAYED until further order of the Court. Signed by Judge Richard A. Hertling. (agg) Service on parties made.

Cohabitation spousal support termination R.C. 3105.18. Trial court did not abuse its discretion in terminating indefinite spousal support order where husband demonstrated that wife was cohabitating and a change of circumstances warranting modification of spousal support under R.C. 3105.18 trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering termination of spousal support effective as of date of last appealable order in 2016.

average weekly wages indefinite employment end date results fair and just

This appeal arises from a hospital's action against a patient to recover payment for medical services. After a bench trial, the court determined there was not an enforceable contract between the parties, but the hospital was entitled to recover the value of its services under a quantum meruit theory and ruled that the charges billed to the patient represented the actual value of the hospital's services. The court based its determination on the testimony of the hospital's witness that, because the rates that a hospital could charge were set by Medicare, the amount charged to the patient was comparable to what other hospitals would charge for the same or similar services. The patient appeals and asks this court to consider whether the hospital proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount it charged for medical services represented the actual value of those services. We affirm the trial court's decision.

The plaintiff lot owners sought a judgment declaring that a certain amend- ment to a declaration of easements, covenants and restrictions, which created a business park common ownership interest community, was invalid, and for injunctive relief. The declaration provided that each lot owner in the business park would be a member of an owner's association and would receive a vote that was proportional to its percentage owner- ship in the business park. The plaintiffs owned four of the seven lots in the business park, and brought the action against several defendants, including M Co. and D. M Co. owned lot 2, R Co. owned lot 1, and O Co. owned lot 7. M Co. proposed to sell lot 2 to D, who intended to use the lot to build a crematorium. Believing that the plaintiffs would oppose D's plan to build a crematorium, M Co., O Co. and R Co., the holders of more than 50 percent of the votes of the association, executed an amendment to the declaration that withdrew lots 1, 2, and 7 from the association and recorded it on the town land records. D thereafter purchased lot 2 from M Co., and sought zoning approval for the cremato- rium, a process in which the plaintiffs participated and confirmed that the defendants had withdrawn from the association. The town zoning commission denied D's application to build the crematorium and D appealed; D and the zoning commission reached a settlement agreement and filed a motion for approval of their settlement. The plaintiffs filed a motion to intervene as of right in the zoning appeal, taking the position that the defendants were not members of the association. The trial court denied the motion to intervene. D commenced construction of the crematorium and the plaintiffs thereafter sought, inter alia, to enjoin him from connecting lot 2 to the association's drainage system and a judgment declaring that the amendment to the declaration was void and unenforceable. After a trial to the court, the court rendered judgment in favor of the defendants