Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga
CHANDLERS LANE CONDOMINIUM OWNERS ASSOCIATION, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
JUDY GILLESPIE, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Edward M. Graham Edward M. Graham Co.,
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Amanda A. Barreto Steven M. Ott
Lindsey A. Wrubel Ott & Associates Co., L.P.A.
BEFORE: Jones, J., McCormack, P.J., and Blackmon, J.
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
A. JONES, SR., JUDGE
Defendant-appellant, Judy Gillespie, appeals from the trial
court's September 30, 2016 judgment granting a permanent
injunction in favor of plaintiff-appellee, Chandlers Lane
Condominium Owners Association, and against her. For the
reasons that follow, we reverse and remand.
On August 12, 2016, Chandlers Lane initiated this action by
filing a verified complaint against Gillespie. The caption of
the complaint requested an ex parte temporary restraining
order and an "expedited request for hearing on
preliminary injunction." The body of the complaint
referred to the association's request for a preliminary
injunction and its "motion for a permanent
injunction"; in addition to the caption not requesting a
permanent injunction, no separate motion for a permanent
injunction was filed by Chandlers Lane.
On August 16, the trial court held an ex parte pretrial with
the association and set the matter for a September 1
preliminary injunction hearing. The docket reflects that the
association appeared at the September 1 hearing through
counsel and that Gillespie appeared pro se. The docket also
reflects that Gillespie had not yet been served with the
complaint. Because of the lack of service, the trial court
reset the matter for a September 22, 2016 hearing on the
association's "motion for preliminary
The docket reflects that Gillespie was served with Chandler
Lane's complaint on September 22, and that on that same
day the trial court held a hearing on the association's
verified complaint and motion for a "permanent"
injunction; Gillespie appeared at the hearing pro se. At the
conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found that the
association had demonstrated, by a preponderance of the
evidence, that Gillespie was a nuisance and had engaged in
harrassing behavior and, therefore, granted a permanent
injunction in favor of Chandlers Lane and against Gillespie.
Gillespie now appeals, raising the following assignments of
error for our review:
I. The trial court abused its discretion and erred by
entering judgment against appellant based upon only a
preponderance of the evidence.
II. The court erred by ordering injunctive relief having made
no finding that there was a need to prevent irreparable harm.
III. The court erred by ordering injunctive relief having
made no finding that there was no adequate remedy at law.
IV. The court erred by conducting a hearing right after the
defendant had just been served with a copy of the complaint
in violation of her constitutional right to due process.
A trial court's decision to grant or deny a request for
injunctive relief is solely within its discretion; thus, that
decision will not be disturbed upon appeal absent a clear
showing of an abuse of ...