green
Positive treatment
published
Doctrinal family (anchor): Long Beach Ass'n v. Jones ↗
Issue: de novo standardDC ↗
Quoted verbatim 2×
32.1 score
Treatment trajectory · 1998 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1998
2012
2026
Cited for
82 Ohio St. 3d at 576 Reviewing questions of law de novo20 citing casesQuestions of law are reviewed de novo.
- Filip v. Wakefield Run Master Homeowners' Assn., Inc., 2017-Ohio-1179.published(Questions of law are reviewed de novo.)
- D S C Ents., L.L.C. v. Ascent Utica Minerals, L.L.C., 2026-Ohio-2272.publishedLong Beach Assn., Inc. v. Jones, 82 Ohio St.3d 574, 576 (1998).
- Vickers v. Capstone Holding, 2025-Ohio-3172.publishedLong Beach Assn., Inc. v. Jones, 82 Ohio St.3d 574, 576 (1998). {¶26} As explained by the Ohio Supreme Court, we are to review the contents within “the four corners of the deed” and apply the plain and unambiguous language found therein.
- Durr Farms, L.L.C. v. Siltstone Resources, L.L.C., 2025-Ohio-1942.publishedLong Beach Assn., Inc. v. Jones, 82 Ohio St.3d 574, 576 (1998).
- Best Motors, L.L.C. v. Kaba, 2025-Ohio-640.publishedLong Beach Assn. v. Jones, 82 Ohio St.3d 574, 576 (1998).
- Mineral Dev., Inc. v. SWN Prod. Co., L.L.C., 2025-Ohio-395.publishedLong Beach Assn., Inc. v. Jones, 82 Ohio St.3d 574, 576 (1998). {¶19} When the court is tasked with ascertaining the intent of the parties to the deed, it is presumed their intent is expressed by the language employed in the written instru…
- Johnston v. Shale Play Land Servs., Inc. & Taurus Corp. & Andrews, 2024-Ohio-5934.publishedLong Beach Assn., Inc. v. Jones, 82 Ohio St.3d 574, 576 (1998).
- Leeseberg & Valentine, L.P.A. v. Willman, 2024-Ohio-4879, 258 N.E.3d 448.publishedLong Beach Assn. v. Jones, 82 Ohio St.3d 574, 576 (1998). {¶ 67} Under Rule 1.16 of the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct, “a lawyer may withdraw from the representation of a client” for a number of reasons.
- Cleveland Constr., Inc. v. Ruscilli Constr. Co., Inc., 2023-Ohio-363.publishedNo. 13AP-773, 2014-Ohio-2078, ¶ 9 , citing Long Beach Assn. v. Jones, 82 Ohio St.3d 574, 576 (1998).
- Huntington Natl. Bank v. Hall, 2021-Ohio-3111.publishedNo. 04AP-1350, 2005-Ohio- 6807, ¶ 22, citing Long Beach Assn., Inc. v. Jones, 82 Ohio St.3d 574, 576 (1998).
Show 10 more citing cases
- Forbes v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 2020-Ohio-2802, 154 N.E.3d 521.publishedLong Beach Assn. v. Jones, 82 Ohio St.3d 574, 576 (1998).
- Fahncke v. Fahncke, 2020-Ohio-433, 151 N.E.3d 1130.published“The construction of written contracts and instruments, including deeds, is a matter of law”
- U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v. Clarke, 2016-Ohio-8435.publishedLong Beach Assn. v. Jones, 82 Ohio St.3d 574, 576 (1998).
- LHPT Columbus, L.L.C. v. Capitol City Cardiology, Inc., 2014-Ohio-5247, 24 N.E.3d 712.publishedNo. 04AP-1350, 2005-Ohio-6807, ¶ 22 , citing Long Beach Assn., Inc. v. Jones, 82 Ohio St.3d 574, 576 (1998). {¶ 22} "In order to constitute a 'memorandum or note' for purposes of satisfying the statute of frauds, [a] writing must 'contain…
- Hastings Mut. Ins. Co. v. Vill. Communities Real Est., Inc., 2014-Ohio-2916.publishedNo. No. 14AP-35 6 04AP-1350, 2005-Ohio-6807, ¶ 22 , citing Long Beach Assn., Inc. v. Jones, 82 Ohio St.3d 574, 576 (1998). {¶ 14} "When provisions of an insurance policy are reasonably susceptible to more than one interpretation, we must c…
- Banks v. Heritage Prop. Grp., L.L.C., 2014-Ohio-991.publishedLong Beach Assn., Inc. v. Jones, 82 Ohio St.3d 574, 576 (1998); Providence Manor Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. Rogers, 12th Dist.
- Town & Country Co-op, Inc. v. Sabol Farms, Inc., 2012-Ohio-4874.publishedNo. 22162, 2004-Ohio-7171, ¶ 23 , citing Long Beach Assn., Inc. v. Jones, 82 Ohio St.3d 574, 576 (1998).
- LaConte Enter. v. Cuyahoga Cnty., 764 N.E.2d 1051 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 2001).publishedLong Beach Assn. v. Jones (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 574, 576, 697 N.E.2d 208, 209 . 3 .
- Williams v. Chelsea Place Apts., 2025-Ohio-2417.publishedSee Long Beach Assn., Inc. v. Jones, 82 Ohio St.3d 574, 576 (1998).
- EAC Props., L.L.C. v. Brightwell, 2014-Ohio-2078.publishedSee Long Beach Assn., Inc. v. Jones, 82 Ohio St.3d 574, 576 (1998), citing Ohio Bell Tel.
697 N.E.2d at 209 The construction of written contracts and instruments, including deeds, is a matter of law.9 citing cases
- Ragen v. Hancor, Inc., 920 F. Supp. 2d 810 (N.D. Ohio 2013).published (The construction of written contracts and instruments, including deeds, is a matter of law.)
- 3385 Newmark Drive, LLC v. PNC Bank, Nat'l Ass'n, No. 1:22-cv-00671 (S.D. Ohio July 8, 2025).Under these rules, “contract interpretation is a matter of law when a contract's terms are clear and unambiguous.” Pavlovich v. Nat'l City Bank, 435 F.3d 560, 565 (6th Cir. 2006) (citing Long Beach Ass'n, Inc. v. Jones, 82 Ohio St.3d 574 ,…
- 3385 Newmark Drive, LLC v. PNC Bank, Nat'l Ass'n, No. 1:22-cv-00671 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 12, 2024). “Under Ohio law, contract interpretation is a matter of law when a contract's terms are clear and unambiguous.” Paviovich v. Nat'l City Bank, 435 F.3d 560, 565 (6th Cir. 2006) (citing Long Beach Ass'n, Inc. v. Jones, 82 Ohio St.3d 574 , 69…
- McGiffin v. Skurich, 2021-Ohio-2741, 176 N.E.3d 833.published“The construction of written contracts and instruments, including deeds, is a matter of law”
- Harmon v. Fifth Third Bancorp, No. 1:18-cv-00402 (S.D. Ohio May 15, 2020).“Under Ohio law, contract interpretation is a matter of law when a contract's terms are clear and unambiguous.” Pavlovich v. Nat'l City Bank, 435 F.3d 560, 565 (6th Cir. 2006) (citing Long Beach Ass'n, Inc. v. Jones, 697 N.E.2d 208, 209-10…
- Duong v. U.S. Bank, N.A. Ex Rel. Merrill Lynch First Franklin Mortg. Loan Trust (In Re Duong), 451 B.R. 800 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2011).publishedPavlovich v. Nat’l City Bank, 435 F.3d 560, 565 (6th Cir.2006) (citing Long Beach Ass’n, Inc. v. Jones, 82 Ohio St.3d 574 , 697 N.E.2d 208, 209-10 (1998)).
- French-Tex Cleaners, Inc. v. Cafaro Co., 893 N.E.2d 1156 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).publishedLong Beach Ass’n, Inc. v. Jones, 82 Ohio St.3d 574, 576 , 697 N.E.2d 208, 209 (1998).
- Pavlovich v. Nat'l City Bank, No. 04-4372 (6th Cir. Jan. 27, 2006).publishedSee Long Beach Ass’n, Inc. v. Jones, 697 N.E.2d 208, 209-10 (Ohio 1998).
- Pavlovich v. Nat'l City Bank, No. 04-4372 (6th Cir. Jan. 9, 2006).unpublishedSee Long Beach Ass’n, Inc. v. Jones, 697 N.E.2d 208, 209-10 (Ohio 1998).
82 Ohio St. 3d at 574 “the construction of written contracts and instruments, including deeds, is a matter of law.”1 citing case
- Ragen v. Hancor, Inc., 920 F. Supp. 2d 810 (N.D. Ohio 2013).published “The construction of written contracts and instruments, including deeds, is a matter of law.”
Other citing cases
- Wildcat Drilling, L.L.C. v. Discovery Oil & Gas, L.L.C., 2023-Ohio-3398, 222 N.E.3d 621.published
- Halpern v. Smith, 2023-Ohio-1370, 219 N.E.3d 364.published
- W.-S. Life Asuc Co. v. George Kaleh, 879 F.3d 653 (5th Cir. 2018).published
- Genesis Outdoor, Inc. v. Poland Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 2013-Ohio-1425.published
- Cumberland Trail Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. Bush, 2011-Ohio-6041.published
- J.B.H. Props. v. N.E.S. Corp., 2007-L-024 (12-28-2007), 2007 Ohio 7116 (Ohio Ct. App. 11th Dist. 2007).published
- O'Neill v. Kemper Ins. Companies, 497 F.3d 578 (6th Cir. 2007).published
- Lauren M. Pavlovich v. Nat'l City Bank, 435 F.3d 560 (6th Cir. 2006).published
- Keal v. Day, 840 N.E.2d 1139 (Ohio Ct. App. 1st Dist. 2005).published
- Ramey v. Berns Props., Unpublished Decision (2-21-2002), No. 79746 (Ohio Ct. App. Feb. 21, 2002).unpublished
Show 11 more citing cases
- Citizens for Choice v. Summit Cnty. Council, 759 N.E.2d 823 (Ohio Ct. App. 9th Dist. 2001).published
- In Re Est. of Stewart, Unpublished Decision (6-28-2000), No. C.A. NO. 99CA007422 (Ohio Ct. App. 9th Dist. June 28, 2000).unpublished
- Westbrock v. W. Ohio Health Care Corp., 738 N.E.2d 799 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. 2000).published
- Seminatore v. Med. Mut. of Ohio, 737 N.E.2d 1016 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 2000).published
- Broad Street Energy Co. v. Endeavor Ohio, LLC, 975 F. Supp. 2d 878 (S.D. Ohio 2013).published
- Cameron v. Hess Corp., 974 F. Supp. 2d 1042 (S.D. Ohio 2013).published
- Wolford v. Wolford, 920 N.E.2d 1052 (Ohio Ct. App. 4th Dist. 2009).published
- Chatman v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., Unpublished Decision (12-3-2003), 2003 Ohio 6455 (Ohio Ct. App. 9th Dist. 2003).unpublished
- Snyder v. Westfield Ins. Co., Unpublished Decision (11-05-2003), 2003 Ohio 5904 (Ohio Ct. App. 9th Dist. 2003).unpublished
- Westfield Ins. Co. v. Metzler, Unpublished Decision (7-16-2003), No. C.A. No. 21517 (Ohio Ct. App. 9th Dist. July 16, 2003).unpublished
- Caruso v. Utica Ins. Co., Unpublished Decision (2-5-2003), No. C.A. No. 21222 (Ohio Ct. App. 9th Dist. Feb. 5, 2003).unpublished
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The Long Beach Association, Inc.
v.
Jones, Appellants Pryka
v.
Jones, Appellants Pryka
No. 97-714.
Ohio Supreme Court.
Aug 12, 1998.
Published opinion
Pheils & Wisniewski and David R. Pheils, Jr., for appellants., McKean & McKean and Alan R. McKean; Fuller & Henry, P.L.L., Martin D. Carrigan and Lisa A. Lay, for appellee Long Beach Association, Inc., Meister, Ayers & Meister and Mark Metusalem, for appellees Ray Pryka et al.
Cook, Douglas, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Stratton, Sweeney.
Cited by 142 opinions | Published
Citer courts: N.D. Ohio (1)
Moyer, C.J.
The question presented for resolution is whether the wording in the 1927 plat of Block' B is ambiguous or clear, and if clear, whether the plat limits use of the lagoon to residents of Block B or allows use to residents of Blocks A, B, and C of the Long Beach subdivision.
Our analysis causes us to conclude that the wording in the plat is clear in stating that all residents of the Long Beach subdivision have use of the lagoon, which, includes the residents of Blocks A, B, and C. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and reinstate the judgment of the trial court.
The construction of written contracts and instruments, including deeds, is a matter of law. Inland Refuse Transfer Co. v. Browning-Ferris Industries of Ohio, Inc. (1984), 15 Ohio St.3d 321, 322, 15 OBR 448, 449, 474 N.E.2d 271, 272. Questions of law are reviewed de novo. Ohio Bell Tel. Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm. (1992), 64 Ohio St.3d 145, 147, 593 N.E.2d 286, 287.
The plat that is the subject of this dispute reads:
“Long Beach Subdivision of Block B of which this is a correct plat is laid out on and consists of Block B in Long Beach in Carroll Township, Ottawa County, Ohio recorded in Vol__Page_of Plats of Ottawa County Record of Plats. Said Block B being located between Blocks A and C, Long Beach whose south line is 6613 North of centerline of Long Beach Road (as called) and whose north line is shore of Lake Erie. Stakes are set at all lot corners. Iron pipe set at points[*577] marked thus -o- Stone monuments at points marked thus -x. Lots are numbered from 1-103 both inclusive and Lots A-B-C-D-E and F, G, and H. * * *
“We the undersigned owners of the above described premises adopt this subdivision into lots and dedicate to public use the way hereon delineated. Lot G-is hereby dedicated to public use as soon as land adjoining on the South dedicated 20 ft. adjoining Robinwood Drive for street purposes. No part of private lane is dedicated to public. Said private lane Lots C-D and E are for the use of lot owners within the sub-division.”
“Where terms in an existing contract are clear and unambiguous, this court cannot in effect create a new contract by finding an intent not expressed in the clear language employed by the parties.” Alexander v. Buckeye Pipe Line Co. (1978), 53 Ohio St.2d 241, 246, 7 O.O.3d 403, 406, 374 N.E.2d 146, 150; Blosser v. Enderlin (1925), 113 Ohio St. 121, 148 N.E. 393, paragraph one of the syllabus.
Applying those well-established principles here, if the intent of the drafters was to delineate an entirely new subdivision, they easily could have done so by eliminating any reference to its being a part of the general subdivision. The plat language clearly states that Block B is located “between Blocks A and C, Long Beach.” The common meaning of this language can only suggest that Block B is a part of the general subdivision established in 1923. Nothing supports the contention of the appellants that Block B is somehow a separate subdivision from the Long Beach subdivision established in 1923, and that therefore the use of the lagoon is exclusive to the residents of Block B. We find no words in the plat that indicate an intent to remove Block B from the subdivision of Long Beach and designate an entirely separate subdivision. Thus, the proper conclusion is that Block B is included in the Long Beach subdivision.
Accordingly, we hold that the court of appeals erred in determining that the trial court made a factual determination concerning the plat language, since the interpretation of the unambiguous language was correctly a matter of law subject to determination by the trial court.
The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed, and the judgment of the trial court is reinstated.
Judgment reversed.
Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.