Pinnacle Condominiums Unit Owners' Assn. v. 701 Lakeside, L.L.C.

2026 Ohio 261

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: January 29, 2026
• Docket: 115118 & 115119
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as Pinnacle Condominiums Unit Owners' Assn. v. 701 Lakeside, L.L.C., 2026-Ohio-261.]

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

PINNACLE CONDOMINIUMS UNIT : OWNERS’ ASSOCIATION, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : Nos. 115118 and 115119 v. : 701 LAKESIDE, LLC, ET AL., : Defendants-Appellants. : [Also appealed by Cramer Engineering, LLC, and James J. : Cramer, : Nonparty Appellants]

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

JUDGMENT: DISMISSED RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: January 29, 2026

Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court Case No. CV-23-976266

Appearances:

Sikora Law LLC, Michael J. Sikora III, and George H. Carr, for appellee.

Frank Consolo, for appellants. MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, A.J.:

{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant 701 Lakeside, LLC (“Lakeside”) and nonparty-

appellants Cramer Engineering, LLC (“Cramer Engineering”) and James J. Cramer

(“James Cramer”) appeal from the trial court’s judgment entry finding that Cramer

Engineering and James Cramer remained in contempt of court following an earlier

contempt order. In this appeal, the parties challenge (1) the trial court’s order

initially finding Cramer Engineering and James Cramer in contempt, and (2) the

trial court’s determination that Cramer Engineering and James Cramer remain in

contempt, notwithstanding their belief that the contempt had been purged.

{¶ 2} After thorough review of the record and relevant law, we find that

neither of appellants’ arguments are properly before this court. With respect to

appellant Lakeside, Lakeside is not a party to the trial court’s contempt order and

does not have standing to challenge the trial court’s finding of contempt as to

appellants Cramer Engineering and John Cramer. Therefore, Lakeside’s appeal in

8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 115118 is dismissed.

{¶ 3} With respect to appellants Cramer Engineering and James Cramer,

the trial court’s initial order finding them in contempt was a final appealable order

from which Cramer Engineering and James Cramer could have appealed but chose

not to do so. As such, the issues raised by them in the first assignment of error are

outside the jurisdiction of this court. Further, no one requested the contempt to be

purged and therefore the trial court never made any determination concerning whether Cramer Engineering or James Cramer had complied with the purge

conditions set forth in the initial contempt order, nor had the trial court executed a

sentence on their failure to purge. As such, the trial court’s order on this point is not

a final appealable order and we will not determine, for the first time on appeal,

whether Cramer Engineering and Jame Cramer satisfactorily purged the contempt.

The issues raised by Cramer Engineering and James Cramer in the second

assignment of error are not properly before this court.

{¶ 4} Accordingly, both cases in this consolidated appeal are dismissed.

Procedural History and Relevant Facts

A. Complaint

{¶ 5} On March 8, 2023, plaintiff-appellee Pinnacle Condominiums Unit

Owners’ Association (“PCUOA”) filed a complaint concerning a dispute involving

the real property known as 701 Lakeside Ave., Cleveland, Ohio. The basis for

PCUOA’s complaint arises from PCUOA’s allegation that Lakeside was in breach of

contract by failing to maintain the parking garage located on the property. The

complaint set forth eight causes of action against Lakeside, including (1) statutory

public nuisance, (2) breach of contract, (3) common law public nuisance,

(4) statutory private nuisance, (5) common law private nuisance, (6) preliminary

and permanent injunctive relief, (7) unjust enrichment, and (8) receivership.

{¶ 6} On August 9, 2024, the trial court granted Lakeside’s motion for

summary judgment with respect to the nuisance claims set forth in the first, third,

fourth, fifth, and sixth causes of action. The court recognized that the eighth cause of action was not a separate cause of action but was a potential for relief under the

dismissed nuisance claims. As such, the only causes of action that remained include

PCUOA’s breach-of-contract and unjust-enrichment claims. A trial was set for

May 13, 2025, at 9:00 a.m.

B. Contempt Finding

{¶ 7} On September 17, 2024, PCUOA issued a document subpoena to

nonparty-witnesses Cramer Engineering and its statutory agent, James Cramer.

When Cramer Engineering and James Cramer failed to timely comply with the

subpoena, PCUOA sent follow-up letters to the witnesses on October 8, 2024, and

November 12, 2024. These letters garnered no response. On December 4, 2024,

PCUOA filed a motion to compel subpoena discovery, seeking an order from the trial

court to compel Cramer Engineering and James Cramer to respond to the document

subpoena issued on September 17, 2024. No one responded to PCUOA’s motion.

{¶ 8} On December 23, 2024, the trial court granted PCUOA’s motion to

compel and ordered Cramer Engineering to produce to counsel for PCUOA the

documents listed in the September 17, 2024 subpoena. The court’s entry also

ordered a contempt hearing to determine whether Cramer Engineering committed

contempt of court by ignoring the subpoena. James Cramer was ordered to appear

at the show-cause hearing to be held on January 15, 2025, at 2:30 p.m.

{¶ 9} On January 21, 2025, the trial court issued a judgment entry finding

Cramer Engineering and James Cramer in contempt of court. The court explained

that a show-cause hearing had been set for January 15, 2025, and that “[n]either Cramer nor any representative of Cramer Engineering, however, appeared at the

hearing.” As a result, the court issued the following sanctions, effective February 3,

2025:

(1) Cramer Engineering, LLC will be fined $100 per work day until such date as it produces documents sought by the subpoena.

(2) An arrest warrant will be issued for James J. Cramer and will remain effective until such time as he complies with the subpoena. If he is arrested before he complies with the subpoena, then he will be held in jail until he purges the contempt by producing the requested documents.

{¶ 10} The court order further noted that if the subpoena recipients comply

with the subpoena no later than February 3, 2025, the finding of contempt would be

vacated.

{¶ 11} The trial court’s January 21, 2025 contempt order was never

appealed. Nor did Cramer Engineering nor James Cramer comply with the

subpoena as of the February 3, 2025 deadline set forth in the order.

{¶ 12} On February 26, 2025, the same attorney representing Lakeside filed

a notice of appearance on behalf of Cramer Engineering and James Cramer. The

following day the attorney for Cramer Engineering and James Cramer filed a notice

with the trial court indicating that Cramer Engineering had “produced documents

in response to [PCUOA’s] subpoena[.]” No one ever requested that the contempt be

purged nor did anyone request a purge-compliance hearing be held to determine

whether they had satisfactorily complied with the purge conditions set forth in the

trial court’s contempt order. C. Deposition Subpoena

{¶ 13} On April 8, 2025, PCUOA filed a motion to compel James Cramer to

attend and give testimony at a deposition. The motion alleged that James Cramer’s

counsel had engaged in “substantial gamesmanship” with respect to scheduling a

deposition with James Cramer. PCUOA attached an email from the trial judge to

the attorneys for the parties as an exhibit, wherein the trial judge advised each party

that “[a]s of January 21, 2025, James Cramer is in contempt with a penalty accruing

at $100 per day. I do note that he may have complied with the subpoena by February

26, but the contempt was never purged.”

{¶ 14} On April 11, 2025, Cramer Engineering and James Cramer filed a

motion for relief from the trial court’s December 23, 2024 judgment entry and the

court’s January 21, 2025 contempt order. The motion claimed that the trial court’s

contempt order should be vacated, alleging that the September 17, 2024 subpoena

was invalid.

{¶ 15} On April 22, 2025, Lakeside filed a motion to quash the deposition

subpoena that had been filed by PCUOA, ordering Cramer Engineering to attend a

deposition set for May 6, 2025, at 10:00 a.m., alleging that the deposition subpoena

was invalid. PCUOA filed a brief in opposition on April 25, 2025.

{¶ 16} On April 29, 2025, the trial court issued a judgment entry granting

Lakeside’s motion to quash the deposition subpoena. The trial court’s judgment

entry further noted: In the meantime, Cramer and Cramer Engineering remain in contempt of court and, as a sanction for the contempt, neither of them will be permitted to testify at trial.

D. Appeal

{¶ 17} On May 12, 2025, Lakeside and nonparties Cramer Engineering and

James Cramer filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s April 29, 2025 judgment

entry in appeal Nos. 115118 and 115119, respectively. On May 21, 2025, we

consolidated the appeals for briefing, hearing, and disposition.

{¶ 18} Appellants present the following assignments of error for our review:

1. The trial court erred on April 29, 2025 when it determined Cramer Engineering and James J. Cramer remained in contempt and issued new sanctions against them pursuant to its January 21, 2025 contempt of court finding, which contempt of court finding was based on their failure to comply with an invalid September 17, 2024 subpoena.

2. The trial court erred on April 29, 2025 when it determined that Cramer Engineering and James J. Cramer remain in contempt of court pursuant to the trial court’s January 21, 2025 contempt of court finding and issued new sanctions against them, despite Cramer Engineering complying with the invalid September 17, 2024 subpoena by providing the subpoenaed documents to PCUOA on February 26, 2025 and notifying the trial court of its compliance by filing a notice on February 27, 2025.

Law and Analysis

{¶ 19} As a preliminary matter, after full briefing and argument was held, we

note that Lakeside does not have standing to challenge the trial court’s order finding

Cramer Engineering and James Cramer in contempt of court or the court’s order

indicating that Cramer Engineering and James Cramer remain in contempt. {¶ 20} The Ohio Supreme Court has stated that a finding of contempt “is

essentially a matter between the court and the person who disobeys a court order or

interferes with the court process.” Donovchek v. Bd. of Trumbull Cty. Commrs., 36

Ohio St.3d 14, 17 (1988). In civil contempt proceedings, where a contemnor has

been given the opportunity to purge a contempt finding if certain conditions are

complied with it has been stated that “‘[t]he contemnor is said to carry the keys of

his prison in his own pocket.’” Ohio Org. Collaborative v. Ohio Redistricting

Comm., 2022-Ohio-1750, ¶ 14, quoting Brown v. Executive 200, Inc., 64 Ohio St.2d

250, 253 (1980).

{¶ 21} The order of contempt at issue in this case pertains only to Cramer

Engineering and James Cramer, not Lakeside. The Ohio Supreme Court has held

that “a court order finding a party in contempt and imposing a sentence conditioned

on the failure to purge is a final, appealable order on the issue whether the party is

in contempt of court.” Docks Venture, L.L.C. v. Dashing Pacific Group, Ltd.,

2014-Ohio-4254, ¶ 23. In addition to that initial appeal, the Court recognized that

a civil contemnor “may have an additional appeal on the limited question of whether

or not the purge conditions have been met following execution of the sentence on

the failure to purge.” Id. at ¶ 2.

{¶ 22} Because Lakeside is not the party that the trial court held in contempt,

Lakeside is precluded from intervening in a matter that is between the contemnors

and the court. As such, the appeal filed by Lakeside in appeal No. 115118 is dismissed. We will address the issues raised by Cramer Engineering and James

Cramer in appeal No. 115119 below.

First Assignment of Error

{¶ 23} In the first assigned error for review, Cramer Engineering and James

Cramer challenge the trial court’s January 21, 2025 judgment entry finding Cramer

Engineering and James Cramer in contempt of court. Because a court’s finding of

contempt is a final appealable order, pursuant to App.R. 4(A)(1), the contemnors,

Cramer Engineering and James Cramer, were required to appeal that decision

within 30 days. They did not appeal the trial court’s January 21, 2025 finding of

contempt. Because they failed to appeal that order, Cramer Engineering and James

Cramer are precluded from challenging the trial court’s contempt finding now.

{¶ 24} Contempt of court has been recognized as the “disobedience of an

order of a court, conduct which brings the administration of justice into disrespect,

or which tends to embarrass, impede or obstruct a court in the performance of its

functions.” In re Contempt of Morris, 110 Ohio App.3d 475, 479 (8th Dist. 1996).

“Where the sanction is intended to coerce compliance with a court’s order, it is civil

contempt.” S.H.B. v. M.W.L., 2019-Ohio-3036, ¶ 16 (8th Dist.), citing Morris at

480.

{¶ 25} Here, the trial court’s January 21, 2025 finding of contempt gave

Cramer Engineering and/or James Cramer the ability to purge the contempt if they

produced the sought-after documents by February 3, 2025. The purpose of the

contempt was to coerce Cramer Engineering and James Cramer to comply with the September 17, 2024 subpoena. Thus, the trial court’s contempt order is civil in

nature.

{¶ 26} In civil contempt proceedings, there are two separate orders subject

to appellate review:

one, whether at the time of the finding of contempt and the imposition of sentence the trial court considered the actions of the alleged contemnor and followed the law in its findings and sentence, and two, whether at the time of the hearing on compliance with purge conditions the court considered whether the contemnor met the conditions or was prevented from doing so.

Docks Venture, L.L.C., 2014-Ohio-4254, at ¶ 21. As discussed above, “a court order

finding a party in contempt and imposing a sentence conditioned on the failure to

purge is a final, appealable order on the issue whether the party is in contempt of

court.” Id. at ¶ 23. In addition to that initial appeal, the Court recognized that a civil

contemnor “may have an additional appeal on the limited question of whether or

not the purge conditions have been met following execution of the sentence on the

failure to purge.” Id. at ¶ 2.

{¶ 27} In the first assignment of error, Cramer Engineering and James

Cramer challenge the propriety of the trial court’s January 21, 2025 contempt order

finding Cramer Engineering and James Cramer in contempt. Because that

contempt order is a final appealable order under Docks, “a party that fails to appeal

that order waives their right to dispute the contempt findings following the

imposition of sentence for failing to satisfy the purge conditions.” Andrews v.

Andrews, 2022-Ohio-3854, ¶ 14 (2d Dist.). See also S.H.B., 2019-Ohio-3036, at ¶ 20 (8th Dist.) (holding that a contemnor is precluded from addressing the

propriety of a contempt finding or challenging the purge conditions once the appeals

concerning the initial contempt findings had been exhausted); Harper v. Kandel,

2020-Ohio-654, ¶ 17 (5th Dist.) (holding that by failing to timely appeal the trial

court’s order finding of contempt, the contemnor “‘waived his right to dispute the

propriety of the contempt order, as well as the purge conditions ordered by the

court’”), quoting Bostick v. Bostick, 2015-Ohio-455, ¶ 13 (2d Dist.).

{¶ 28} Cramer Engineering or James Cramer could have appealed the trial

court’s initial order finding Cramer Engineering and James Cramer in contempt.

They did not. As a result, they are precluded from challenging the propriety of the

trial court’s initial contempt findings now. Accordingly, the issues raised by Cramer

Engineering and James Cramer in the first assigned error are outside the

jurisdiction of this court and are overruled.

Second Assignment of Error

{¶ 29} In their second assignment of error, Cramer Engineering and James

Cramer claim that the trial court erred in its April 29, 2025 judgment entry by

finding that Cramer Engineering and James Cramer remained in contempt of court.

They allege that the subpoenaed documents were provided to PCUOA on

February 26, 2025, and notice was filed with the trial court the following day and

that they complied with the purge conditions, believing the trial court’s contempt

finding had been purged. {¶ 30} However, no one ever moved the trial court to purge the finding of

contempt nor did they request a purge hearing in which the trial court could have

determined whether either Cramer Engineering or James Cramer had complied

with the purge conditions. Nor did the trial court ever issue an order affirmatively

purging the contempt. As such, the issue of whether they complied with the trial

court’s purge conditions is not properly before us because it was not addressed by

the trial court.

{¶ 31} As discussed above, a civil contempt sanction includes conditional

penalties “‘designed for remedial or coercive purposes and are often employed to

compel obedience to a court order.’” Docks Venture, L.L.C., 2014-Ohio-4254, at

¶ 15, quoting State ex rel. Corn v. Russo, 90 Ohio St.3d 552, 555 (2001). A court

may hold a purge hearing to determine whether the contemnor has satisfied the

purge conditions. S.H.B., 2019-Ohio-3036, at ¶ 17 (8th Dist.), citing Liming v.

Damos, 2012-Ohio-4783, ¶ 16. Such a hearing “is limited to determining whether

the contemnor complied with conditions imposed for purging contempt.” Docks at

¶ 20, citing Liming at ¶ 30. The contemnor bears the burden of showing that the

purge conditions have been complied with. Id. at ¶ 17, citing In re A.N., 2013-Ohio-

3816, ¶ 19 (8th Dist.).

{¶ 32} We “‘will not consider a question not presented, considered or

decided by a lower court.’” First Rehab. Funding, LLC v. Milton, 2025-Ohio-2677,

¶ 23 (8th Dist.), quoting Kalish v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 50 Ohio St.2d 73, 79

(1977). An issue “‘not raised in the trial court may not be raised for the first time on appeal.’” Id., quoting Spy v. Arbor Park Phase One Assoc., 2020-Ohio-2944, ¶ 16

(8th Dist.). As a result, “[t]he ‘failure to raise an issue before the trial court waives

that issue for appellate purposes.’” Id., quoting Miller v. Cardinal Care Mgmt.,

2019-Ohio-2826, ¶ 23 (8th Dist.).

{¶ 33} Furthermore, the Ohio Supreme Court has held that a civil

contemnor, in addition to being able to appeal from a final order finding the

contemnor in contempt, “may have an additional appeal on the limited question of

whether or not the purge conditions have been met following execution of the

sentence on the failure to purge.” (Emphasis added.) Docks Venture, L.L.C. at ¶ 2.

As discussed above, the trial court never determined whether Cramer Engineering

and James Cramer purged the contempt and, therefore, has yet to execute a sentence

on their failure to purge. As such, the court’s order finding that they remained in

contempt, absent an execution of a sentence on the failure to purge, is not a final

appealable order from which they may appeal.

{¶ 34} Because the trial court never addressed whether Cramer Engineering

and/or James Cramer had complied with the purge conditions or executed a

sentence on their failure to purge, this issue is not properly before us on appeal

because the trial court did not address it. We decline to make such a factual

determination with respect to Cramer Engineering’s or James Cramer’s compliance

with the purge conditions, or lack thereof, in the first instance on appeal. The

portion of the appeal concerning issues raised in the second assignment of error is,

therefore, dismissed. {¶ 35} Accordingly, we dismiss the appeals in appeal Nos. 115118 and 115119.

It is ordered that appellee recover from appellants the costs herein taxed.

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27

of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

______________________________________ MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE

EMANUELLA D. GROVES, J., and SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR