A recent decision by the Ohio Court of Appeals addresses whether several real estate entities must pay a substantial arbitration award after questions arose about their participation in the underlying proceedings. The appellate court ruled that the trial court erred when it vacated a judgment confirming an arbitration award, and ordered that judgment be entered in favor of confirming the award.
The complaint was filed by Elon Property Management Company, LLC on December 13, 2024, in Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas against multiple defendants collectively referred to as the Shif entities, including Shif Rockside Place LLC, Shif Sherwood Village LLC, Shif Riviera LLC, Shif Evergreen Village Townhomes LLC, Shif Cedar Ridge LLC, and Shif Britford LLC.
According to court documents, Elon sought confirmation of an arbitration ruling dated July 26, 2024. The ruling stated that “Mr. Kutner of NYC owes Elon $342,485.43 due immediately.” An addendum issued on December 6, 2024 provided a breakdown attributing specific amounts to each named Shif entity: $143,298.16 for Shif Rockside Place LLC; $11,712.41 for Shif Sherwood Village LLC; $45,081.83 for Shif Riviera LLC; $52,580.68 for Shif Evergreen Village Townhomes LLC; $36,061.58 for Shif Cedar Ridge LLC; and $54,462.22 for Shif Britford LLC.
Elon attached one contract with its application but represented that all contracts with the various Shif entities were identical in form. Despite being served at their listed addresses according to court records, none of the defendants responded or contested Elon’s application at that time.
After a telephone conference took place between parties and the trial court confirmed the arbitration award in favor of Elon for each amount listed above, the defendants—referred to as “Shif”—filed an appeal (CA-25-114915) and subsequently moved for relief from judgment on March 13, 2025. In their motion to vacate and for relief from judgment under Civil Rule 60(B), they argued that none of them participated in or were parties to the arbitration proceeding itself. Instead, they claimed North York Capital—a real estate company—was the true party involved in both contract and arbitration with Elon.
Supporting this argument were documents including an engagement letter signed by representatives from North York Capital and property management agreements where Dovi Kutner acted as agent or representative signing on behalf of certain Shif entities.
Elon countered that these arguments were untimely under Ohio law (R.C. 2711.13), which requires motions to vacate or modify an arbitration award be filed within three months after delivery of such award. Elon provided evidence showing delivery via email on December 9, 2024 and noted no timely opposition was filed by any defendant prior to its own application on December 13.
On April 16, 2025—the trial court granted relief without issuing an opinion explaining its rationale. This prompted Elon’s appeal arguing error in granting relief beyond statutory deadlines or permissible grounds under R.C. Chapter 2711 or Civil Rule 60(B).
The appellate panel reviewed both legal mechanisms cited by parties: R.C. 2711.13 governing vacation or modification of awards after timely notice; and Civil Rule 60(B), which allows courts to relieve parties from final judgments under limited circumstances such as mistake or fraud if timely raised with meritorious grounds shown.
The majority opinion found that because defendants failed to file any contesting motion within three months after delivery—and because arguments raised under Civil Rule 60(B) simply restated claims better suited (and now barred) under R.C. Chapter 2711—the trial court lacked jurisdiction to grant relief from judgment confirming the arbitration award: “Because Shif failed to file a timely motion contesting or opposing the application pursuant to R.C. 2711.13, the trial court was required to confirm the arbitration award.”
The panel also determined there was insufficient explanation from defendants regarding delay or lack of response despite evidence showing service and receipt: “These speculative and undeveloped arguments do not meet standards for relief under Civ.R. 60(B).”
As a result, Elon’s assignment of error was sustained and “this matter is remanded to vacate granting of Shifs combined motion for relief from judgment and enter judgment confirming the arbitration award.”
In dissenting opinion Judge Eileen T. Gallagher argued that since “the agreement to submit disputes to binding arbitration…does not mention any of the Shif entities by name nor does it contain any signatures from members” thereof—and since neither original ruling nor addendum specifically imposed liability upon those entities—they should not be bound by either proceeding or outcome.
Legal representation included Christopher O’Connell of Singerman Mills Desberg & Kauntz Co., L.P.A., appearing for appellant Elon Property Management Company; judges identified in this case are Kathleen Ann Keough (authoring), Eileen A Gallagher (concurring), and Eileen T Gallagher (dissenting). The case identification number is No. 115087.
Source: 2026Ohio735_Elon_Property_Management_Company_LLC_v_Shif_Rockside_Place_LLC_Opinion_Ohio_Court_of_Appeals.pdf