[Cite as Eagle Ridge Subdivision, Inc. v. Ott & Assocs. Co., L.P.A., 2026-Ohio-256.]
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
EAGLE RIDGE SUBDIVISION INC., ET AL., :
Plaintiffs-Appellants, : No. 114907 v. :
OTT & ASSOCIATES CO., LPA, :
Defendant-Appellee. :
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: January 29, 2026
Civil Appeal from the Cleveland Municipal Court Case No. 2024-CVI-007589
Appearances:
Leonard Slodov, pro se.
EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, J.:
Plaintiff-appellant Leonard H. Slodov (“Slodov”), pro se, appeals a
judgment of the Cleveland Municipal Court dismissing his complaint for legal
malpractice against defendant-appellee, Ott & Associates Co., LPA (“Ott &
Associates”). He brings this appeal on behalf of himself and Eagle Ridge Subdivision
Property Owner’s Association (“Eagle Ridge” or “the association”). In his two assignments of error, he claims (1) the trial court erred in adopting the magistrate’s
decision recommending dismissal of his complaint, and (2) the trial court erred in
finding that he failed to prove his legal-malpractice claim by a preponderance of the
evidence.
We affirm the trial court’s judgment. After reviewing the record, we
find that Slodov, who is not an attorney, cannot represent the association. And
because there is no evidence of an attorney-client relationship between Slodov and
Ott & Associates, the trial court properly concluded that Slodov failed to prove his
claims by a preponderance of the evidence.
I. Facts and Procedural History
Slodov owns a home in Novelty, Ohio, and is a member of Eagle Ridge,
a nonprofit homeowner’s association composed of 25 single-family homes. In 2010,
Slodov was elected treasurer of the association. Around the same time Slodov was
elected treasurer, the association hired Ott & Associates to serve as the association’s
legal counsel. Ott & Associates has remained Eagle Ridge’s legal advisor since that
time. Slodov served on the association’s board of trustees in various capacities for
the next 12 years until a group of members allegedly removed him from the board
in 2021 in violation of the association’s bylaws. In 2021, new members were elected
to the board of trustees and Slodov was not reelected.
In 2022, Ott & Associates took action against Slodov to collect monies
owed to the association. The association, through Ott & Associates, filed a lien on
Slodov’s home and a foreclosure complaint against Slodov in the Geauga County Court of Common Pleas. The lien was signed by the same members of the
association who had sought to remove Slodov from the board of trustees. As a result
of these actions, Slodov filed a complaint in the Chardon Municipal Court seeking
an injunction to remove the lien on his house and for money damages. He also filed
a complaint for money damages against Eagle Ridge and three individual members
of the board of trustees in the Geauga County Court of Common Pleas, alleging that
he was illegally removed from the board of trustees in violation of the association’s
bylaws.
In April 2023, the Geauga County Court of Common Pleas dismissed
Slodov’s complaint against Eagle Ridge and the individually named trustees. In
June 2023, the Chardon Municipal Court dismissed Slodov’s complaint as barred
by collateral estoppel. (Complaint ¶ 37.) Slodov appealed both decisions, and both
decisions were affirmed on appeal. See Slodov v. Eagle Ridge Subdivision Property
Owners Assn., 2024-Ohio-143 (11th Dist.) and Slodov v. Eagle Ridge Subdivision
Property Owner’s Assn., 2023-Ohio-3688 (11th Dist.).
In June 2024, Slodov, on behalf of himself and Eagle Ridge, filed a
complaint in the Cleveland Municipal Court against Ott & Associates, asserting a
single claim for legal malpractice. (Complaint ¶ 20-26.) The complaint alleged that
Ott & Associates committed malpractice by failing to call a meeting, failing to listen
to testimony, and failing to mediate Slodov’s dispute with the members who had
allegedly sought his removal in violation of the association’s bylaws. (Complaint
¶ 27-32.) The complaint also alleged that Ott & Associates committed legal malpractice by instituting collection efforts against Slodov for his alleged failure to
pay association dues. Slodov alleged the collection action was taken for purposes of
“retaliation and or a form of harassment.” (Complaint ¶ 27.)
Following a small-claims hearing, a magistrate issued a two-sentence
decision dated August 19, 2024, finding that Slodov failed to prove authority to bring
the action on behalf of Eagle Ridge. The trial court approved the magistrate’s
decision the same day. These decisions addressed the claims brought by Slodov on
behalf of Eagle Ridge but they did not address Slodov’s personal claims against Ott
& Associates. Thus, although the judgment entry referred generally to dismissal of
the case, Slodov’s individual claim for malpractice remained pending.
On September 4, 2024, Slodov filed objections to the magistrate’s
decision. On December 4, 2024, a magistrate issued a decision converting Slodov’s
objections to a motion to vacate the August 19, 2024 judgment entry and granted
the motion. Thereafter, on January 28, 2025, the magistrate issued another
decision. This time, the magistrate found that not only did Slodov fail to prove that
he had authority to bring the action on behalf of Eagle Ridge, but he also failed to
prove the existence of an attorney-client relationship between himself and Ott &
Associates. The trial court approved the magistrate’s decision, found that Slodov
“failed to prove his claims by preponderance of the evidence,” and dismissed the
complaint in its entirety. (Jan. 28, 2025 Judgment Entry.) Slodov now appeals the
trial court’s judgment. II. Law and Analysis
A. Res Judicata
In the first assignment of error, Slodov argues the trial court’s
January 28, 2025 judgment dismissing the case was barred by res judicata because
it had previously dismissed the malpractice claim brought on behalf of Eagle Ridge
for lack of standing but subsequently vacated that judgment. He contends the
magistrate’s decision vacating the dismissal barred any future dismissal of the legal-
malpractice claim.
Under the doctrine of res judicata, “[a] valid, final judgment rendered
upon the merits bars all subsequent actions based upon any claim arising out of the
transaction or occurrence that was the subject of the previous action.” Grava v.
Parkman Twp., 73 Ohio St.3d 379, 382 (1995). Thus, for the doctrine to apply, the
issues must have been determined by a final, appealable order. State v. Williams,
76 Ohio St.3d 290, 294 (1996). Interlocutory orders are not final, and courts have
discretion to modify them at any time. O’Malley v. O’Malley, 2013-Ohio-5238, ¶ 21
(8th Dist.).
The magistrate’s decision vacating the August 19, 2024 judgment entry
was not a final, appealable order. To constitute a final, appealable order, the court’s
judgment must resolve all claims. Passwaters v. Novaria, 2025-Ohio-1533
(5th Dist.) (dismissing appeal for lack of a final, appealable order where the trial
court’s judgment did not resolve all claims). The magistrate’s decision vacating the
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as Eagle Ridge Subdivision, Inc. v. Ott & Assocs. Co., L.P.A., 2026-Ohio-256.]
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
EAGLE RIDGE SUBDIVISION INC., ET AL., :
Plaintiffs-Appellants, : No. 114907 v. :
OTT & ASSOCIATES CO., LPA, :
Defendant-Appellee. :
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: January 29, 2026
Civil Appeal from the Cleveland Municipal Court Case No. 2024-CVI-007589
Appearances:
Leonard Slodov, pro se.
EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, J.:
Plaintiff-appellant Leonard H. Slodov (“Slodov”), pro se, appeals a
judgment of the Cleveland Municipal Court dismissing his complaint for legal
malpractice against defendant-appellee, Ott & Associates Co., LPA (“Ott &
Associates”). He brings this appeal on behalf of himself and Eagle Ridge Subdivision
Property Owner’s Association (“Eagle Ridge” or “the association”). In his two assignments of error, he claims (1) the trial court erred in adopting the magistrate’s
decision recommending dismissal of his complaint, and (2) the trial court erred in
finding that he failed to prove his legal-malpractice claim by a preponderance of the
evidence.
We affirm the trial court’s judgment. After reviewing the record, we
find that Slodov, who is not an attorney, cannot represent the association. And
because there is no evidence of an attorney-client relationship between Slodov and
Ott & Associates, the trial court properly concluded that Slodov failed to prove his
claims by a preponderance of the evidence.
I. Facts and Procedural History
Slodov owns a home in Novelty, Ohio, and is a member of Eagle Ridge,
a nonprofit homeowner’s association composed of 25 single-family homes. In 2010,
Slodov was elected treasurer of the association. Around the same time Slodov was
elected treasurer, the association hired Ott & Associates to serve as the association’s
legal counsel. Ott & Associates has remained Eagle Ridge’s legal advisor since that
time. Slodov served on the association’s board of trustees in various capacities for
the next 12 years until a group of members allegedly removed him from the board
in 2021 in violation of the association’s bylaws. In 2021, new members were elected
to the board of trustees and Slodov was not reelected.
In 2022, Ott & Associates took action against Slodov to collect monies
owed to the association. The association, through Ott & Associates, filed a lien on
Slodov’s home and a foreclosure complaint against Slodov in the Geauga County Court of Common Pleas. The lien was signed by the same members of the
association who had sought to remove Slodov from the board of trustees. As a result
of these actions, Slodov filed a complaint in the Chardon Municipal Court seeking
an injunction to remove the lien on his house and for money damages. He also filed
a complaint for money damages against Eagle Ridge and three individual members
of the board of trustees in the Geauga County Court of Common Pleas, alleging that
he was illegally removed from the board of trustees in violation of the association’s
bylaws.
In April 2023, the Geauga County Court of Common Pleas dismissed
Slodov’s complaint against Eagle Ridge and the individually named trustees. In
June 2023, the Chardon Municipal Court dismissed Slodov’s complaint as barred
by collateral estoppel. (Complaint ¶ 37.) Slodov appealed both decisions, and both
decisions were affirmed on appeal. See Slodov v. Eagle Ridge Subdivision Property
Owners Assn., 2024-Ohio-143 (11th Dist.) and Slodov v. Eagle Ridge Subdivision
Property Owner’s Assn., 2023-Ohio-3688 (11th Dist.).
In June 2024, Slodov, on behalf of himself and Eagle Ridge, filed a
complaint in the Cleveland Municipal Court against Ott & Associates, asserting a
single claim for legal malpractice. (Complaint ¶ 20-26.) The complaint alleged that
Ott & Associates committed malpractice by failing to call a meeting, failing to listen
to testimony, and failing to mediate Slodov’s dispute with the members who had
allegedly sought his removal in violation of the association’s bylaws. (Complaint
¶ 27-32.) The complaint also alleged that Ott & Associates committed legal malpractice by instituting collection efforts against Slodov for his alleged failure to
pay association dues. Slodov alleged the collection action was taken for purposes of
“retaliation and or a form of harassment.” (Complaint ¶ 27.)
Following a small-claims hearing, a magistrate issued a two-sentence
decision dated August 19, 2024, finding that Slodov failed to prove authority to bring
the action on behalf of Eagle Ridge. The trial court approved the magistrate’s
decision the same day. These decisions addressed the claims brought by Slodov on
behalf of Eagle Ridge but they did not address Slodov’s personal claims against Ott
& Associates. Thus, although the judgment entry referred generally to dismissal of
the case, Slodov’s individual claim for malpractice remained pending.
On September 4, 2024, Slodov filed objections to the magistrate’s
decision. On December 4, 2024, a magistrate issued a decision converting Slodov’s
objections to a motion to vacate the August 19, 2024 judgment entry and granted
the motion. Thereafter, on January 28, 2025, the magistrate issued another
decision. This time, the magistrate found that not only did Slodov fail to prove that
he had authority to bring the action on behalf of Eagle Ridge, but he also failed to
prove the existence of an attorney-client relationship between himself and Ott &
Associates. The trial court approved the magistrate’s decision, found that Slodov
“failed to prove his claims by preponderance of the evidence,” and dismissed the
complaint in its entirety. (Jan. 28, 2025 Judgment Entry.) Slodov now appeals the
trial court’s judgment. II. Law and Analysis
A. Res Judicata
In the first assignment of error, Slodov argues the trial court’s
January 28, 2025 judgment dismissing the case was barred by res judicata because
it had previously dismissed the malpractice claim brought on behalf of Eagle Ridge
for lack of standing but subsequently vacated that judgment. He contends the
magistrate’s decision vacating the dismissal barred any future dismissal of the legal-
malpractice claim.
Under the doctrine of res judicata, “[a] valid, final judgment rendered
upon the merits bars all subsequent actions based upon any claim arising out of the
transaction or occurrence that was the subject of the previous action.” Grava v.
Parkman Twp., 73 Ohio St.3d 379, 382 (1995). Thus, for the doctrine to apply, the
issues must have been determined by a final, appealable order. State v. Williams,
76 Ohio St.3d 290, 294 (1996). Interlocutory orders are not final, and courts have
discretion to modify them at any time. O’Malley v. O’Malley, 2013-Ohio-5238, ¶ 21
(8th Dist.).
The magistrate’s decision vacating the August 19, 2024 judgment entry
was not a final, appealable order. To constitute a final, appealable order, the court’s
judgment must resolve all claims. Passwaters v. Novaria, 2025-Ohio-1533
(5th Dist.) (dismissing appeal for lack of a final, appealable order where the trial
court’s judgment did not resolve all claims). The magistrate’s decision vacating the
August 19, 2024 judgment entry was not a final, appealable order because it resurrected Eagle Ridge’s claim against Ott & Associates and Slodov’s individual
claim against Ott & Associates also remained pending. Without a final, appealable
order, the doctrine of res judicata does not apply.
The first assignment of error is overruled.
B. Legal Malpractice
In the second assignment of error, Slodov argues the trial court erred
in finding that he failed to prove his legal-malpractice claims by a preponderance of
the evidence.
In his January 28, 2025 decision, the magistrate found that Slodov,
who is not a lawyer, lacked authority to bring a legal-malpractice claim on behalf of
Eagle Ridge, a corporation. It also found that Slodov failed to prove his personal
claim for legal malpractice by a preponderance of the evidence. The trial court
adopted the magistrate’s decision and dismissed the claims of both Slodov and Eagle
Ridge.
It is well-established that while an individual who is not an attorney
may represent his own interests in court, he may not represent the interests of a
corporation. Arnoff v. PAJ Ents., L.L.C., 2022-Ohio-1759, ¶ 22 (8th Dist.), citing
Mun. Realty Corp. v. Erqur, 2014-Ohio-1557, ¶ 7 (6th Dist.) (An Ohio corporation
must be represented by an attorney and cannot be represented by any nonattorney
officer.). Therefore, the trial court properly dismissed Eagle Ridge’s legal-
malpractice claim against Ott & Associates because it was brought by a nonattorney. For Slodov to prevail on his individual claim for legal malpractice, he
would have to establish the existence of an attorney-client relationship giving rise to
a duty, a breach of that duty, and damages proximately caused by that breach. New
Destiny Treatment Ctr., Inc. v. Wheeler, 129 Ohio St.3d 39, 43 (2011), citing Krahn
v. Kinney, 43 Ohio St.3d 103, 105 (1989). If the plaintiff fails to establish any one of
these elements, the plaintiff’s claim fails and the defendant is entitled to judgment
in his or her favor. Shoemaker v. Gindlesberger, 2008-Ohio-2012, ¶ 8 (“If a plaintiff
fails to establish a genuine issue of material fact as to any of the elements, the
defendant is entitled to summary judgment on a legal-malpractice claim.”).
There is no evidence in the record establishing an attorney-client
relationship between Slodov, individually, and Ott & Associates. Even the complaint
does not allege the existence of an attorney-client relationship between Slodov and
Ott & Associates. Slodov may have retained Ott & Associates on behalf of Eagle
Ridge when he was a member of the board of trustees, but that attorney-client
relationship was between Eagle Ridge and Ott & Associates. Slodov was not a party
to that agreement. In the absence of an attorney-client relationship, Slodov could
not establish a personal claim for legal malpractice and the trial court properly
dismissed the claim for lack of evidence.
Therefore, the second assignment of error is overruled.
Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that appellant to pay costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the
municipal court to carry this judgment into execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27
of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, JUDGE
MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, A.J., and MARY J. BOYLE, J., CONCUR