A $30,220 verdict carried $198,000 in fees against an Ohio condo board
A $30,220 verdict carried $198,000 in fees against an Ohio condo board
2026-09-15 · Ohio · Courts
A unit owner sued his condominium association over refusals to repair. He lost five of his six claims. The jury awarded him $30,219.96 — and the court then awarded him $190,853.66 in attorney fees, for a total around $198,000. The Supreme Court of Ohio declined to review the case today.1
Rosen v. Cobblestone Lane Condominium Association Inc., 2026-Ohio-1755, was decided by the Ninth District on May 13, 2026 out of Summit County. The owner sued under R.C. 5311.19(A) over the association's refusal to repair his unit and the common areas, pleading breach of the declaration and bylaws plus derivative fiduciary-duty and gross-negligence claims.
He had sought $49,212.96 — $38,000 in lost rent and $11,212.96 in repairs. The jury gave him $30,219.96. The fee request was $272,648.08, and the magistrate cut it by a flat 30 percent to $190,853.66.
Losing most of your claims does not stop you prevailing
The association argued the owner could not be the prevailing party having won one claim out of six. The court disposed of that briskly:
“Cobblestone's argument is essentially that the court should have applied a mathematical formula to the number of claims made by Rosen (6) versus the number of claims decided in his favor (1), but that argument is not supported by the applicable law. The one and only claim that was tried to the jury, and thus the main issue - the breach of contract claim - resulted in a verdict against Cobblestone.” (¶ 30)
And so: “the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Rosen was the prevailing party and was entitled to attorney's fees under R.C. 5311.19(A).” (¶ 31)
Who decides the fee question
The court held the trial judge, not the jury, properly decided entitlement to fees: “Cobblestone has not shown that the trial court erred as a matter of law in awarding attorney fees under R.C. 5311.19(A) without first allowing the jury to” decide entitlement. (¶ 26)
The 30 percent haircut, though, was reversed for want of explanation. The court noted that during oral argument “Cobblestone's counsel conceded that the court's rationale contained insufficient detail” (¶ 38) — a concession that cut against the association, since the fee amount goes back for recalculation from a request of $272,648.08.
The claim arises from the governing documents themselves. Our Ohio governing statute page covers the duties they impose on a board.
The arithmetic a board needs to internalise
The fee exposure in an Ohio R.C. 5311.19(A) case is not proportionate to the damages, and it is not reduced by winning most of the case.
Run the numbers from the association's side. The owner's claim was worth, at his own valuation, $49,212.96. The association fought it and lost on one count. Its liability is now roughly $198,000 plus its own defence costs plus whatever the remand produces — and the remand starts from a $272,648.08 request with the 30 percent reduction stripped out.
That means an association's decision to litigate a repair dispute is almost never a decision about the repair. A $30,000 repair argument carried six times its own value in fees. Our Ohio mediation and dispute resolution page covers the alternatives to finding that out in a courtroom.
The Supreme Court came close to taking it
On September 15, 2026 the Supreme Court of Ohio declined jurisdiction in No. 2026-0797. But it was not unanimous: Justice Fischer dissented, and Justice DeWine dissented and would have accepted on propositions of law Nos. I and II.
That is the closest the Court has come in this period to taking up a condominium attorney-fee question. For boards and owners it is a signal that the issue is live rather than settled, and that a future case on cleaner facts may well get through.
Three forums, one statute
Ohio's appellate districts currently disagree about how an R.C. 5311.19(A) case is even tried.
The First District holds that a unit owner has a constitutional jury-trial right on the damages claim, because the declaration is more than a contract and carries the attributes of a real covenant.
The Ninth District, in Rosen, keeps the fee-entitlement question with the judge.
The Tenth District has held that a condominium's bylaws may send the whole dispute — including fights over the board's own collection practices — to binding arbitration.
Three districts, three forums, one statute, and no Supreme Court guidance. Which of those an Ohio association faces depends on where its buildings are and what its own bylaws say.
What it means for a board
Price the fee exposure before the second letter, not after the verdict. The question in a repair dispute is never “are we right?” It is “what does being right cost if we are partly wrong?” On these facts, being 83 percent right cost $198,000.
Treat a maintenance demand as a fee-shifting event. R.C. 5311.19(A) gives a unit owner a statutory route with fees attached. An association that ignores a repair request is not merely risking a repair bill.
Look at your bylaws for an arbitration clause — or consider adding one. It is the one mechanism Ohio courts have upheld for keeping these disputes out of a jury trial, and it is the difference between the Rosen outcome and a very different one.
Document the repair decision. The fee award followed a finding that the association breached. Boards that record the engineering advice, the cost analysis and the reasoning behind a decision not to repair are defending a judgment call. Boards that simply declined are defending nothing.
Related Ohio HOA Topics
Stay on top of Ohio HOA law
Every week: new Ohio legislation, court rulings, and regulatory developments affecting condos, planned communities, and property managers. Free.
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.