Prevailing is not arithmetic

The Ninth District rejected the intuitive approach to who has won:

“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.”

An owner can lose five of six claims and still be the prevailing party, with the full fee entitlement that follows. An association planning litigation on the basis that it will win most of the case is planning on the wrong variable. Our Ohio mediation and dispute resolution page covers the alternatives.

The procedural trap that delays everything

Where a trial court finds an association entitled to fees but defers the amount, and the entry carries no Civ.R. 54(B) “no just reason for delay” language, there is no final appealable order. The Fifth District put it plainly in Franzmann: “The May 30, 2025, judgment entry did not include Civil Rule 54(B) language and the issue of the amount of attorney fees remains unresolved. Accordingly, this Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain this appeal.”

The same trap caught at least two other Ohio association appeals in this period. For a board it is a practical delay. For an owner it is a hazard, and it compounds: by the time the fee number is fixed and the appeal is finally available, the entitlement question may already be barred by res judicata if it was decided in an earlier appeal.

Which forum decides the fee

Three Ohio districts, three answers, and the Supreme Court has not resolved it.

The First District holds a unit owner has a constitutional jury-trial right on the damages claim under R.C. 5311.19(A), because a declaration “assumes some of the attributes of a covenant running with the land.”

The Ninth District holds that fee entitlement stays with the judge even where a jury tried the damages.

The Tenth District holds that a mandatory arbitration clause in condominium bylaws sends the entire dispute to an arbitrator, because “nothing in the language of the statute either requires resolution through civil litigation or precludes arbitration.”

On September 15, 2026 the Supreme Court of Ohio declined to take the fee question, over two dissents — Justice Fischer, and Justice DeWine, who would have accepted on two propositions of law.

What this changes for a board

Price the fee exposure at the first letter. Not at the complaint, and certainly not at trial. The decision to escalate a $3,000 dispute is a decision about a potential six-figure fee award, in either direction.

Find out whether your bylaws contain an arbitration clause. If they do, it is worth more than most boards realise and should not be waived by litigating on the merits first. If they do not, adding one is a real decision with real trade-offs — it removes the association's access to a jury too, narrows appeals, and requires a bylaw amendment put honestly to the members.

Comply with your own documents before you enforce them. R.C. 5312.13 is the statute that turned one Ohio association from judgment creditor into defendant this year, because it had created a restriction by a procedure the documents did not permit.

Collect early, in the cheap forum. Municipal and small claims courts remain open to association dues claims, and the Fifth District confirmed it this year. A balance collected at sixty days never generates a fee award at all.

And keep the file. The other pattern across the 2025-2026 Ohio record is that associations lost on evidence rather than law — a missing title search, unfiled deeds, an unsupported restriction, minutes that recorded a vote but no reasoning. Every one of those losses carried a fee consequence.