The Ohio Court of Appeals has upheld a lower court's decision to disqualify an attorney representing the River Bend Homeowner's Association in a legal dispute with Ravine Run, LLC. The ruling, dated July 9, 2026, affects the ongoing legal battle over access to private roads in a subdivision and highlights the importance of attorney-client confidentiality.
The case, Ravine Run, L.L.C. v. Riverbend Homeowner's Assn., Inc., was filed under docket number 25 CAE 11 0103. The court's decision is significant as it reinforces the ethical obligations of attorneys and the protection of confidential information shared between clients.
Ravine Run, LLC, the plaintiff in the case, filed a complaint against River Bend Homeowner's Association on June 23, 2025. The dispute centers around private roads owned by River Bend that provide access to an adjacent subdivision owned by Ravine Run. Ravine Run sought a declaratory judgment, an injunction, and monetary damages, aiming to compel River Bend to recognize and not obstruct its use of an ingress and egress easement across these private roads. The issue involved access to these roads, which required a code and fees to use.
In response, River Bend filed an answer and a counterclaim on July 21, 2025, also seeking a declaratory judgment regarding the private roads and alleging unjust enrichment. The association was represented by attorney Michael W. Currie.
On September 30, 2025, Ravine Run filed a motion to disqualify Attorney Currie from representing River Bend. Ravine Run argued that Currie had previously represented a legal entity, River Run of Powell LLC, which was owned in part by Cugini and Capoccia Builders, Inc. (CCBI), the parent company of Ravine Run. The plaintiff claimed that confidential information shared with Currie during that prior representation could be used against Ravine Run in the current case. They cited Ohio's Professional Conduct Rule 1.9, which addresses the duties of attorneys to former clients.
The trial court granted the motion to disqualify Currie on October 24, 2025, stating that the use of confidential information against Ravine Run demonstrated the need for disqualification. The court also noted that the issue regarding Currie's registration to practice law in Ohio had been resolved.
River Bend appealed the trial court's decision, claiming it was erroneous to disqualify Attorney Currie. The Ohio Court of Appeals, led by Judge Andrew J. King, reviewed the case and ultimately disagreed with River Bend's argument.
The court ruled that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in disqualifying Currie. It referenced the three-part test established by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit for determining whether an attorney should be disqualified. This test requires that (1) a past attorney-client relationship existed between the party seeking disqualification and the attorney to be disqualified; (2) the subject matter of those relationships was substantially related; and (3) the attorney acquired confidential information from the party seeking disqualification.
The court found that the trial court properly applied this test and that the first two prongs were likely met. It stated, "The trial court properly applied the Dana test and we cannot find the trial court's decision to disqualify Attorney Currie was unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable." The court emphasized that disqualification is a serious measure that should only be imposed when ethical violations occur that could significantly impact the trial.
Furthermore, the court noted that the trial court had sufficient grounds to conclude that confidential information had been shared between Currie and Cugini during the prior representation. The court stated, "Only where an attorney himself represented a client in matters substantially related to those embraced by a subsequent case he wishes to bring against the former client, is he irrebuttably presumed to have benefitted from confidential information relevant to the current case."
This ruling has implications for both parties involved in the case and sets a precedent for similar disputes regarding attorney disqualification in Ohio. It underscores the importance of maintaining confidentiality in attorney-client relationships and the potential consequences when those relationships overlap in legal matters.
Looking ahead, River Bend could potentially seek further appeals, but details were not available in the court filing regarding any plans for additional legal action. The case highlights ongoing issues related to homeowner associations and property rights, which may continue to evolve as similar disputes arise in the future.