Court Rulings

This appeal arises from a lawsuit concerning the enforcement of restrictive covenants in a subdivision. River Plantation Homeowner's Association, Inc. ("the Association"), later joined by certain individual property owners ("Plaintiffs" collectively), sued property owners R. Randall Capps and his wife Carolyn Brown Capps ("the Capps") in the Chancery Court for Greene County ("the Trial Court") seeking enforcement of a restrictive covenant requiring homeowners to have a paved driveway. The Capps have a gravel driveway and wish to keep it. The Trial Court found in favor of Plaintiffs and ordered the Capps to install a concrete driveway. The Capps appeal, raising several issues, including one as to whether the Association lacks standing. We hold, inter alia, that the Association, although not specified in the restrictive covenants as a party capable of suing to enforce restrictions, has standing to do so. In light of the unambiguous driveway restriction and the fact that the Association never waived enforcement, we affirm the Trial Court's judgment in favor of Plaintiffs. However, we modify the Trial Court's judgment to allow the Capps, if they so choose, to use asphalt instead of concrete, as the Association has no objection to it. In addition, we reverse the Trial Court's decision to not award Plaintiffs their attorney's fees incurred in successfully bringing this enforcement action where the restrictive covenants specifically provide for such attorney's fees. We, therefore, remand for the determination and award to Plaintiffs of reasonable attorney's fees. Otherwise, we affirm the judgment of the Trial Court.

Ohio Condominium Act R.C. Chapter 5311 business invitee negligence premises liability open-and-obvious doctrine attendant circumstances condominium association R.C. 5311.08(M) managing agent liability. Summary judgment was properly granted in favor of appellees condominium owners association and the condominium managing agent based on the open-and- obvious doctrine. Appellant failed to establish that appellees breached a duty of care to appellant. Appellant admitted that her attention was averted when she tripped and fell due to a pothole. The condominium's managing agent was not an independent contractor and was thus entitled to invoke the open-and-obvious defense.

In this appeal, the father challenges the trial court's determination of the residential parenting schedule as it relates to visitation during the school term. Upon our review, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion.

Fraud breach of contract unjust enrichment negligent misrepresentation statutory interpretation settlement negotiations Evid.R. 408 summary judgment Civ.R. 56. Plaintiff alleged numerous causes of action against defendant in connection with payments plaintiff made to defendant to reimburse defendant for the costs of cleaning up pollution. Plaintiff alleges that those costs were covered by defendant's insurance policy and defendant was therefore ineligible to receive reimbursement. Plaintiff asserts that defendant fraudulently represented that it did not have insurance to cover the cleanup costs. Defendant asserted counterclaims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. Defendant moved for summary judgment on all of plaintiff's claims, and plaintiff moved for summary judgment on defendant's request for attorney's fees. The court granted summary judgment to defendant and denied plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment. The court found that defendants presented evidence that the cleanup costs at issue were not covered by insurance, and plaintiffs failed to point to any insurance policy that would have covered the costs. In making this determination, the court refused to admit evidence submitted by plaintiff concerning settlement negotiations between defendant and its insurers. The court determined that such evidence was inadmissible under Evid.R. 408. The court determined that genuine issues of material fact existed concerning whether defendant may be eligible for attorney's fees.

An employee filed workers' compensation claims against her employer for alleged workrelated back and leg injuries. The Court of Workers' Compensation Claims (the trial court) ruled against the employee, finding that the employee failed to show that her alleged injuries were work-related. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's decision. The employee appealed. This appeal was referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law under Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51. After careful consideration, we affirm the judgment of the Appeals Board and adopt its opinion as set forth in the attached Appendix.

The magistrate did not err in finding that relator's time off work while receiving workers' compensation benefits did not constitute "contributing service" for the purpose of determining when relator could file her application for School Employees Retirement System of Ohio disability benefits under R.C. 3309.01(D). Objections overruled writ of mandamus denied.