< 7> Blake’s complaint included a partial copy of the New England Square Condominium Plat, which explains that each condominium unit has a living area, including an outside deck, as well as an attached carport or detached garage, depending on the unit model. On the ground level, below Blake’s condominium Unit E, there are parking spaces designated as “detached garages” for condominium Units A-D, and an attached “carport” for parking for Unit E. It appears that Blake filed a claim with Heritage Title regarding the county auditor’s mistake, which Heritage Title denied.
Both Blake and Family Savings punctual recorded moves and you will responses
< 8> After being granted leave to plead, Home Savings filed its answer and the Condominium Board filed an answer and a motion to dismiss or strike , noting that the trial court had already addressed Blake’s claims against the Condominium Board , and that the Court of Appeals had affirmed the decision in New England Square Condominiums Assn. v. Blake, 7th Dist. No. 04-CO-40 , 2008-Ohio-3247 . On , the trial court filed a judgment entry dismissing Blake’s claim against the Condominium Board . Blake did not appeal this decision.
< 9> After receiving leave from the trial court , Home Savings filed an amended answer and counterclaim naming Richard E. Whitely (Blake’s boyfriend) , the Columbiana County Treasurer , and Heritage Title as third party defendants . Home Savings asserted that Blake and Whitely executed and delivered a promissory note to Home Savings which is in default in the amount of $14, plus interest as of , and that Blake executed and delivered a mortgage deed to Home Savings, which is a valid lien on the property. Accordingly, Home Savings sought judgment on the note against Blake and Whitely and foreclosure of the mortgage. Home Savings also asserted that Heritage Title had issued a title guarantee to Home Savings and Blake, and would be responsible for any success of Blake’s claim against Home Savings regarding the invalidity of her title to the property. Heritage Title, the Columbiana County Treasurer and Whitely filed answers. Blake filed an answer to Home Savings’ amended answer and counterclaim.
Blake was mistakenly energized possessions taxation for the entire parking lot lower than their condominium for some time, that was afterwards corrected from the county auditor and you may deemed so you’re able to was in fact a great scrivener’s mistake
< 10> Subsequent to various discovery motions and filings which are not pertinent to this appeal, the trial court filed a judgment installment loans Oklahoma entry on , setting summary judgment motion and response deadlines.
< 11> Blake argued in her motion for summary judgment that Sitler Construction’s public use dedication caused Blake’s title to the condominium to be void, and that Home Savings should have known of the title infirmity because Home Savings was the lender involved with Sitler Construction during the development of the property in the 1980 ‘s. Blake concluded that Home Savings was liable for fraudulent misrepresentation, breach of warranty of title, and breach of contract, and that Home Savings’ mortgage lien was unenforceable. Blake also concluded that Heritage Title was liable for breach of contract for failure to pay Blake’s claim, that the Columbiana County Treasurer was obligated to return all property taxes paid by Blake, and that the Condominium Association was obligated to return all maintenance and insurance fees paid on the property.
< 12> Heritage Title responded to Blake’s motion for summary judgment , asserting that no map indicates the property at issue was ever dedicated to public use. Heritage Title noted that the property was designated for parking, which remained private property. Blake filed a response to Heritage Title’s response, apparently arguing that the parking area must be considered public, or else non-owners of the properties would not ever be permitted to park their cars there.
