The part that is not good news for boards

The association did not simply win. The court reversed both summary judgments, because the real question was never answered:

“the determinative issue with regard to whether the Deed of Restrictions remains enforceable as to Sublot 1 is whether Delta Trust had notice of the restrictions at the time of purchase.” (¶ 25)

Notice turns on chain of title, and neither party submitted a title search. The court also warned off a shortcut boards commonly rely on: “the preliminary judicial report is of no value in determining the existence or validity of restrictive covenants.” (¶ 22)

So an Ohio association suing a foreclosure purchaser has to prove its declaration is in that purchaser's chain of title, with an actual title examination, before it gets anywhere. Our Ohio foreclosure page covers where associations sit in the priority order that produced this sale in the first place.

The same lesson, from a different district

The Twelfth District made the identical point about proof in Alum Cliff Industries, L.L.C. v. Hickory Woods Home Owners' Association, Inc., 2026-Ohio-2756. The association won its enforcement action against the developer entity, which had filed the relevant plat itself and so plainly had notice — and lost against six individual lot owners for a purely evidentiary reason:

“We have reviewed the record and have not found summary judgment evidence establishing chain-of-title between the lot owners' individual deeds and the Third Amendment. Specifically, our review of the record reveals that none of the lot owners' deeds were ever submitted to the trial court.” (¶ 44)

And the governing principle: “in order for a purchaser of real property to be charged with constructive notice of an encumbrance contained in a prior recorded instrument, the prior instrument must be recorded in the purchaser's chain-of-title.” (¶ 41)

The court was explicit that notice to one defendant is not notice to another: “constructive notice to Alum Cliff does not establish constructive notice to the individual lot owners named in the third-party complaint.” (¶ 47)

One useful thing Alum Cliff settled about amendments

The court upheld the amendment itself. After the development period expires, the declaration's own amendment provision governed and the declarant's signature was not needed:

“The HOA executed the Third Amendment in 2012, well after the Development Period expired in 2001 as set forth in the Declaration. Therefore, pursuant to the terms of Section 15.2, the Third Amendment need only have been executed by the President and Secretary of the HOA.” (¶ 38)

Many Ohio associations believe they are stuck because a long-departed developer will not sign. Check the post-development-period track in your own amendment section before accepting that.

The operational rules

Order a title search before you sue on a covenant. Not a preliminary judicial report. A search that shows the declaration in the defendant's chain of title. It is the cheapest part of the case and, in both of these appeals, the part that decided it.

Attach the deeds. Referencing an owner's deed by book and page in a complaint is not evidence. Six owners walked away from an enforcement judgment because their deeds were never put in the record.

Do not concede the foreclosure argument. A buyer at sheriff's sale takes free of liens, including the association's own assessment lien for pre-sale amounts. They do not take free of the covenants. Those are different things, and purchasers conflate them routinely.