The Ohio Court of Appeals recently upheld a lower court's decision requiring homeowners Terry W. Miller and Maria E. Miller, along with Timothy R. Link and Elizabeth A. Link, to remove an outbuilding constructed by Charles P. Bellofatto and Kristy L. Bellofatto. The court ruled that the Bellofattos violated restrictive covenants in the Hampden Ridge Subdivision by failing to obtain necessary approvals before construction. This ruling emphasizes the importance of adhering to property restrictions and could have implications for homeowners in similar situations.
The case, Miller v. Bellofatto, was filed under docket number 2025 CA 00081 and arose from a dispute over the construction of a 1,440 square foot outbuilding on a property in Granville, Ohio. The court's decision, issued on September 11, 2026, highlights the legal obligations homeowners have when it comes to property modifications in subdivisions governed by restrictive covenants.
Background
The dispute began when the Bellofattos purchased Lot 10 in the Hampden Ridge Subdivision in 1996. This subdivision was established in 1990 and included a Declaration of Restrictive Covenant that outlined specific restrictions on property use and construction. These covenants required that any structures erected in the subdivision receive prior written approval from the developers.
In February 2021, the Bellofattos combined their original lot with an adjacent lot that was outside the subdivision and not subject to the same restrictions. They then began construction of the outbuilding in August 2022 without seeking approval from the subdivision developers, despite being reminded of the restrictions by neighbors. The Millers and Links filed a complaint in February 2023, seeking a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief against the Bellofattos.
The Ruling
The Ohio Court of Appeals, led by Judge Craig R. Baldwin, affirmed the lower court's ruling, which had granted summary judgment in favor of the Millers and Links. The court found that the Bellofattos had violated the restrictive covenants by failing to obtain the required approvals before constructing the outbuilding. The court stated, "The appellants were aware of the Restrictive Covenant, failed to seek the Developers’ approval of the design and location of the outbuilding, and continued with construction of the outbuilding at issue despite being put on further notice by neighbors."
The judges ruled that the restrictive covenants were clear and unambiguous, and the Bellofattos had no valid argument to claim that the new lot was not subject to these restrictions. The court emphasized that the Bellofattos proceeded with construction at their own risk, stating, "The appellants simply failed to comply with the requirements set forth in the Restrictive Covenant." The ruling concluded that the only appropriate remedy for the violation was the removal of the outbuilding.
Impact
This ruling reinforces the enforceability of restrictive covenants in property developments, making it clear that homeowners must adhere to established rules when making modifications to their properties. It serves as a cautionary tale for homeowners who may consider making changes without proper approvals. The decision could impact future cases involving property disputes, particularly in subdivisions with similar restrictive covenants, as it underscores the legal obligation to comply with such agreements.
Homeowners in subdivisions may need to be more vigilant about understanding and following the rules laid out in restrictive covenants. The ruling also highlights the potential consequences of ignoring these restrictions, which can include costly legal battles and the requirement to remove structures that do not comply.
What's Next
The Bellofattos have the option to appeal the decision to a higher court, but details about any potential appeal were not available in the court filing. The outcome of this case may influence how similar disputes are handled in the future, particularly regarding the interpretation and enforcement of restrictive covenants in Ohio.