A recent appellate court decision has overturned a lower court’s order appointing a receiver to oversee abatement measures at a former hotel property, citing failure to comply with statutory requirements for such an appointment. The ruling affects ongoing efforts by local authorities to address what they allege is a public nuisance at the site.
The complaint was filed by Suite Living, LLC in the Court of Appeals for Lorain County, Ohio, on March 2, 2026, naming the City of Elyria as the defendant. The appeal challenged a judgment entered by the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas regarding property located on Lorain Boulevard in Elyria that previously operated as a Days Inn hotel.
According to court documents, Suite Living purchased the property in 2021 while it was subject to a closing order under state law. In 2024, the City of Elyria filed its own complaint against Suite Living seeking a declaration that the property constituted a public nuisance. The city also requested abatement of the alleged nuisance and asked for the appointment of a receiver to manage remediation efforts.
Suite Living denied the allegations in its answer but later agreed with Elyria to enter into a stipulated journal entry declaring the property a public nuisance. This agreement set out specific abatement measures and deadlines for completion by Suite Living. It also specified that if progress was unsatisfactory after those deadlines, either party could move for appointment of Christopher Mulvaney as receiver to complete abatement tasks.
After deadlines passed without what city officials considered sufficient progress, Elyria moved to have Mr. Mulvaney appointed as receiver. Suite Living opposed this motion in court filings, arguing that Mr. Mulvaney had not met statutory requirements outlined in Ohio Revised Code Section 3767.41(C)(3)(a). Specifically, Suite Living stated that Mr. Mulvaney had neither submitted nor demonstrated “a viable financial and construction plan” for rehabilitating the building—a prerequisite under state law before any receiver can be appointed.
Despite these objections, the trial court granted Elyria’s motion and issued an order appointing Mr. Mulvaney as receiver with powers and duties defined under relevant statutes.
Suite Living appealed this decision on grounds that legal procedures were not followed because no financial or construction plan had been provided or approved prior to Mr. Mulvaney’s appointment. In its argument before the appellate court, Suite Living emphasized language from both statute and their earlier agreement: “the stipulated entry further provided that Mr. Mulvaney would be appointed receiver ‘upon compliance with [R.C.] 3767.41(D) and motion by either of the [parties].’”
The City of Elyria countered that Suite Living was barred from challenging Mr. Mulvaney’s appointment due to provisions in their agreement stating neither party would appeal its terms. However, according to appellate records: “there was no language in the stipulated entry suggesting that the trial court could appoint Mr. Mulvaney receiver unless he first satisfied the statutory requirement of providing a financial and construction plan.”
The appellate panel found merit in Suite Living’s argument: “As the record makes clear that Mr. Mulvaney failed to comply with R.C. 3767.41(C)(3)(a), the trial court’s order appointing him as receiver must be reversed.” The judges noted that while Suite Living waived any objection regarding Mr. Mulvaney’s qualifications by agreeing he could serve as receiver if needed, they did not waive requirements related to submission and approval of rehabilitation plans.
As relief, Suite Living sought reversal of the receivership order based on noncompliance with statutory prerequisites governing such appointments—specifically submission and approval of detailed plans covering costs, financing terms, projected income/expenses post-rehabilitation or demolition if repair proved unfeasible.
Ultimately, “the judgment of the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas is reversed,” reads Judge Donna J. Carr’s opinion for the Ninth Judicial District Court of Appeals; “and cause remanded for further proceedings consistent with this decision.” The appellate mandate directs lower courts to execute this judgment promptly.
Attorneys Logan Trombley and Warner Mendenhall represented Suite Living; Erik A. Breunig and Margaret A. O’Bryon served as counsel for Elyria in this matter (Case No.: 25CA012271).
Source: 2026Ohio706_Suite_Living_LLC_v_City_of_Elyria_Opinion_Ohio_Court_of_Appeals.pdf