Leveque 41, L.L.C. v. Leveque Tower Condominium Assn., Inc.
Citation
2025 Ohio 2055
Court
Ohio Court of Appeals
Decided
June 10, 2025
Jurisdiction
SA
Importance
46%
Case Summary
[Cite as Leveque 41, L.L.C. v. Leveque Tower Condominium Assn., Inc., 2025-Ohio-2055.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT Leveque 41, LLC et al., : Plaintiffs-Appellants, : No. 24AP-368 (C.P.C. No. 23CV-4780) v. : (REGULAR CALENDAR) The Leveque Tower Condominium : Association, Inc. et al., : Defendants-Appellees. : DECISION Rendered on June 10, 2025 On brief: Loveland Law, LLC, and Bryan S. Hunt, for appellants. Argued: Bryan S. Hunt. On brief: Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease, LLP, Joseph R. Miller and Elizabeth S. Alexander, for appellees The LeVeque Tower Condominium Association, Inc., and Lawyers Development Company, LLC. Argued: Joseph R. Miller. On brief: Arnold & Clifford LLP, James Arnold, Damian M. Clifford, and Gerhardt A. Gosnell II, for appellee Tower 10, LLC and Lawyers Development Company, LLC. On brief: Baker & Hostetler LLP, Albert G. Lin, Robert J. Tucker, and Christopher K. Riedel, for appellees The LeVeque Tower Condominium Association, Inc., Stephanie Chitwood, David Feltman, Drew Meyers, Robert Meyers, Brett Kaufman, Frank Sasso, First LeVeque, LLC and LVQ, LLC. On brief: Mazanec, Raskin & Ryder Co., LPA, Steven K. Kelley, and Frank H. Scialdone; Willis Law Firm, LLC, and Dimitri G. Hatzifotinos, for appellee Link Real Estate Group, LLC. APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas No. 24AP-368 2 EDELSTEIN, J. {¶ 1} Plaintiffs-appellants, LeVeque 41, LLC, LeVeque Forty, LLC, and Towertop II, LLC (collectively “appellants”), appeal from a decision and order granting the motion of defendants-appellees, The Leveque Tower Condominium Association, Inc. (“the condo association”), Link Property Management Company, Lawyer’s Development Company, LLC, Stephanie Chitwood, David Feltman, Robert Habeeb, Brett Kaufman, Ian Labitue, Drew Meyers, Robert Meyers, Frank Sasso, Amanda Wilson, First LeVeque, LLC, LVQ, LLC, and Tower 10, LLC to stay further proceedings pending arbitration. For the following reasons, we affirm. I. Facts and Procedural History {¶ 2} Appellants are the owners of four condominium units in LeVeque Tower, a building in Columbus, Ohio. Appellees include the condo association, nine individual members of the condo association’s board, and five business entities. Two of the business entities—Link and Lawyer’s Development—provided property management for the association. The remaining three business entities—First LeVeque, LLC, LVQ, LLC, and Tower 10—are the owners of additional condominium units in LeVeque Tower. {¶ 3} Appellants initially filed a complaint on July 7, 2016, followed by an amended complaint on July 31, 2023. As set forth in appellants’ amended complaint, the original declaration formed The LeVeque Tower Condominium and created the condo association in accordance with R.C. 5311.08(A)(1). On June 17, 2015, the amended declaration fully amended and restated the original declaration. The amended declaration includes the condo association’s current bylaws. {¶ 4} Appellants alleged LVQ owns 15 condo units and appointed one board member, First LeVeque owns 11 condo units and appointed one board member, and Tower 10 owns 17 condo units and appointed one board member. Appellants further alleged Robert Meyers, one of the individual appellees, has an ownership stake in First LeVeque, Tower 10, and LVQ and has “taken control of the Board.” (Am. Compl. at ¶ 37, 196.) The amended complaint generally alleged the condo association, the named board members, and the unit owner appellees intentionally disregarded the obligations owed to all unit owners by allowing collection delinquencies in condominium assessments owed by LVQ, No. 24AP-368 3 First LeVeque, and Tower 10. These collection delinquencies allegedly totaled over $ 1 million. (Am. Compl. at ¶ 56.) {¶ 5} In their amended complaint, appellants asserted claims for: (1) declaratory judgment related to the collection of assessments; (2) declaratory judgme
Case Details
Case Details
Legal case information
Status
Decided
Date Decided
June 10, 2025
Jurisdiction
SA
Court Type
federal
Legal Significance
Case importance metrics
Metadata
Additional information
Quick Actions
Case management tools
Case Summary
Summary of the key points and legal principles
[Cite as Leveque 41, L.L.C. v. Leveque Tower Condominium Assn., Inc., 2025-Ohio-2055.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
Leveque 41, LLC et al., :
Plaintiffs-Appellants, : No. 24AP-368
(C.P.C. No. 23CV-4780)
v. : (REGULAR CALENDAR) The Leveque Tower Condominium : Association, Inc. et al., : Defendants-Appellees. :
DECISION
Rendered on June 10, 2025
On brief: Loveland Law, LLC, and Bryan S. Hunt, for
appellants. Argued: Bryan S. Hunt.
On brief: Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease, LLP, Joseph R.
Miller and Elizabeth S. Alexander, for appellees The LeVeque
Tower Condominium Association, Inc., and Lawyers
Development Company, LLC. Argued: Joseph R. Miller.
On brief: Arnold & Clifford LLP, James Arnold, Damian M.
Clifford, and Gerhardt A. Gosnell II, for appellee Tower 10,
LLC and Lawyers Development Company, LLC.
On brief: Baker & Hostetler LLP, Albert G. Lin, Robert J.
Tucker, and Christopher K. Riedel, for appellees The LeVeque
Tower Condominium Association, Inc., Stephanie Chitwood,
David Feltman, Drew Meyers, Robert Meyers, Brett Kaufman,
Frank Sasso, First LeVeque, LLC and LVQ, LLC.
On brief: Mazanec, Raskin & Ryder Co., LPA, Steven K.
Kelley, and Frank H. Scialdone; Willis Law Firm, LLC, and
Dimitri G. Hatzifotinos, for appellee Link Real Estate Group,
LLC.
APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas
No. 24AP-368 2
EDELSTEIN, J. {¶ 1} Plaintiffs-appellants, LeVeque 41, LLC, LeVeque Forty, LLC, and Towertop II, LLC (collectively “appellants”), appeal from a decision and order granting the motion of defendants-appellees, The Leveque Tower Condominium Association, Inc. (“the condo association”), Link Property Management Company, Lawyer’s Development Company, LLC, Stephanie Chitwood, David Feltman, Robert Habeeb, Brett Kaufman, Ian Labitue, Drew Meyers, Robert Meyers, Frank Sasso, Amanda Wilson, First LeVeque, LLC, LVQ, LLC, and Tower 10, LLC to stay further proceedings pending arbitration. For the following reasons, we affirm. I. Facts and Procedural History {¶ 2} Appellants are the owners of four condominium units in LeVeque Tower, a building in Columbus, Ohio. Appellees include the condo association, nine individual members of the condo association’s board, and five business entities. Two of the business entities—Link and Lawyer’s Development—provided property management for the association. The remaining three business entities—First LeVeque, LLC, LVQ, LLC, and Tower 10—are the owners of additional condominium units in LeVeque Tower. {¶ 3} Appellants initially filed a complaint on July 7, 2016, followed by an amended complaint on July 31, 2023. As set forth in appellants’ amended complaint, the original declaration formed The LeVeque Tower Condominium and created the condo association in accordance with R.C. 5311.08(A)(1). On June 17, 2015, the amended declaration fully amended and restated the original declaration. The amended declaration includes the condo association’s current bylaws. {¶ 4} Appellants alleged LVQ owns 15 condo units and appointed one board member, First LeVeque owns 11 condo units and appointed one board member, and Tower 10 owns 17 condo units and appointed one board member. Appellants further alleged Robert Meyers, one of the individual appellees, has an ownership stake in First LeVeque, Tower 10, and LVQ and has “taken control of the Board.” (Am. Compl. at ¶ 37, 196.) The amended complaint generally alleged the condo association, the named board members, and the unit owner appellees intentionally disregarded the obligations owed to all unit owners by allowing collection delinquencies in condominium assessments owed by LVQ, No. 24AP-368 3
First LeVeque, and Tower 10. These collection delinquencies allegedly totaled over $ 1 million. (Am. Compl. at ¶ 56.) {¶ 5} In their amended complaint, appellants asserted claims for: (1) declaratory judgment related to the collection of assessments; (2) declaratory judgme
Case Information
Detailed case metadata and classifications
Court Proceedings
Document Details
Legal Classification
Judicial Panel
Similar Cases
Cases with similar legal principles and precedents
Case Details
Legal case information
Status
Decided
Date Decided
June 10, 2025
Jurisdiction
SA
Court Type
federal
Legal Significance
Case importance metrics
Metadata
Additional information
Quick Actions
Case management tools