One condominium case is pending right now

On July 21, 2026 the Court accepted Griffith v. Chelsea Condominium, S.Ct. No. 2026-0555, on proposition of law No. I, and sua sponte held the cause for its decision in Dornette v. Green Bldg. Consulting, L.L.C.

That holding order tells you what the Court is interested in. It is treating the condominium case as a vehicle for a general attorney-fee and damages question, not a condominium-specific one. The Eighth District below had held that under its own precedent the prevailing party on a motion to enforce a settlement may recover attorney fees as compensatory damages — while remanding on whether the association failed to mitigate by continuing to litigate after the owners offered to pay the disputed amount.

The acceptance was not unanimous: the Chief Justice and one justice would have accepted on both propositions, and two dissented from accepting at all.

What the Court declined

Three association cases were refused review in this period, and one of the refusals is the most interesting entry on the list.

On September 15, 2026 the Court declined Rosen v. Cobblestone Lane Condominium Assn., No. 2026-0797 — the case in which a $30,219.96 verdict carried roughly $198,000 in attorney fees. 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 to taking up a condominium fee question.

It also declined Horne v. Adena Pointe Homeowners Assn. (the first appellate construction of R.C. 5312.16 on solar restrictions) on March 3, 2026; Slodov v. Eagle Ridge Subdivision Property Owners Assn. on March 17, 2026; and Point East Condominium Owners' Assn. v. Bilfield on October 28, 2025. Our Ohio governing statute page covers the statutory framework all of these are construing.

The split that matters most

Three districts now answer the same question three different ways: who decides an R.C. 5311.19(A) claim?

The First District holds a unit owner has a constitutional jury-trial right on the damages claim. The Ninth District holds attorney-fee entitlement stays with the judge even where a jury tried the damages. The Tenth District holds that a mandatory arbitration clause in the bylaws sends the whole dispute to an arbitrator, because “nothing in the language of the statute either requires resolution through civil litigation or precludes arbitration.”

One statute, three forums. Which one an Ohio association or owner gets depends on the county the buildings sit in and on a bylaw most purchasers never read.

The second split is evidentiary rather than doctrinal, and it runs the same way in every district: associations are losing on evidence, not on law. One district required a board to produce affidavits, minutes and property-value data supporting its restriction. Another required the association to put individual owners' deeds in the record. A third required a title search rather than a preliminary judicial report. In each case the association's legal position was defensible and its file was not.

What follows for a board

Your appellate district is your law. With no Supreme Court guidance, the controlling authority on forum, fees and evidence is whatever your district has said. Counsel in Cincinnati and counsel in Akron are advising on genuinely different rules.

Watch Griffith, but not for a condominium answer. Held for a general fee case, it is more likely to move Ohio attorney-fee law broadly than to settle anything specific to associations.

Expect the fee question to come back. Two justices wanted it in September. A cleaner vehicle will find its way up.