Long Beach Assn., Inc. v. Jones

• Citation: 82 Ohio St.3d 574,697 N.E.2d 208
• Decision Date: 12 August 1998
• Docket Number: No. 97-714,97-714
• Parties: The LONG BEACH ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellee, v. JONES et al., Appellants; Pryka et al., Appellees.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Page 574

82 Ohio St.3d 574

697 N.E.2d 208

The LONG BEACH ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellee, v. JONES et al., Appellants; Pryka et al., Appellees.

No. 97-714.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Submitted April 22, 1998.

Decided Aug. 12, 1998.

Appellants Stanley K. and Joan Jones purchased Lot 87 in Block B in 1978, and appellants Ralph and Delores Schade purchased Lot 88 in Block B in 1954. Appellants were members of the association until the association filed suit to quiet title to the lagoon and private lane and for trespass against the Joneses for using more than one docking space for a period of years in contravention of association regulations.

The Joneses counterclaimed and the Schades made a third-party claim against the association, claiming trespass, conversion, unjust enrichment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Appellants contend that they installed steel piling along the shoreline, within their lot lines, for their own personal use, but the association is leasing docks to persons from Blocks A and C. The association responded by offering evidence that its improvements were made for the benefit of all members.

The trial court, on cross-motions for summary judgment, dismissed the counterclaim and third-party claim. It determined that there was no evidence supporting the claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress. The trial court dismissed the trespass claim because it determined that the association's interest was of a sufficient extent that appellants could not exclude the association from use of the private lane and lagoon. Finally, the court dismissed the remaining claims, finding that the 1927 plat agreement was unambiguous and that no evidence in the plat dedication, attached affidavits, or recorded restrictions supported the appellants' contention that the lagoon was for the exclusive use of the residents of Block B.

Upon appeal, the court of appeals held that the trial court erred in dismissing the counterclaims of trespass, conversion, and unjust enrichment, and affirmed summary judgment on the claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress. Additionally, the court of appeals held that the trial court erred in its interpretation of the 1927 plat and found the language in the two plats sufficiently ambiguous on the question of whether the members of Blocks A and C were intended to have access to the docks to preclude summary judgment.

Despite the ruling of the court of appeals in their favor, the appellants appealed to this court on the issue of whether the 1927 plat clearly and unambiguously dedicated use of the lagoon and private lane to residents of Block B only.

The cause is before the court pursuant to the allowance of a discretionary appeal.

Pheils & Wisniewski and David R. Pheils, Jr., Perrysburg, for appellants.

McKean & McKean and Alan R. McKean, Oak Harbor; Fuller & Henry, P.L.L., Martin D. Carrigan and Lisa A. Lay, Toledo, for appellee Long Beach Association, Inc.

Meister, Ayers & Meister and Mark Metusalem, for appellees Ray Pryka et al.

MOYER, Chief Justice.

The question presented for resolution is whether the wording in the 1927 plat of Block B is ambiguous or clear, and if clear, whether the plat limits use of the lagoon to residents of Block B or allows use to residents of Blocks A, B, and C of the Long Beach subdivision.

Our analysis causes us to conclude that the wording in the plat is clear in stating that all residents of the Long Beach subdivision have use of the lagoon, which includes the residents of Blocks A, B, and C. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and reinstate the judgment of the trial court.

The construction of written contracts and instruments, including deeds, is a matter of law....