The Eleventh Appellate District Court of Ohio has upheld a lower court’s decision finding Leonard H. Slodov in contempt of court over a dispute involving access to an email account associated with the Eagle Ridge Subdivision Property Owners Association (HOA). Slodov, who was previously a trustee of the HOA, appealed the Geauga County Court of Common Pleas’ ruling, but the appellate court found his arguments without merit and affirmed the lower court’s judgment.
Background of the Case
Slodov’s legal troubles began after he was not re-elected to the Eagle Ridge Board of Trustees in November 2021. He subsequently filed a lawsuit alleging the election was invalid. The HOA, along with current board members, filed a counterclaim. During the discovery phase of the case, the HOA sought access to various records, including the email login credentials and password for an Eagle Ridge email account.
The trial court initially ordered Slodov to produce these records in November 2022. After some procedural delays, including a summary judgment ruling in favor of the HOA, the court addressed Slodov’s failure to comply with the original order. The parties eventually reached an agreement, formalized in a June 17, 2024, Agreed Judgment Entry. This entry stipulated that Slodov would pay a financial sanction and cooperate with the HOA to reset the financial accounting passwords. It also allowed Slodov to deactivate the Eagle Ridge email account 90 days from the entry date. The court retained jurisdiction to ensure compliance.
The Contempt Finding
The HOA later filed a motion alleging that Slodov violated the Agreed Entry. They claimed he prematurely deactivated the email account and failed to fully cooperate in resetting the financial accounting software passwords. The trial court found that Slodov had complied with the financial payment requirement but had not provided full access to the email account. He had enabled two-factor authentication, which restricted the HOA’s access.
The court ordered Slodov to provide “unfettered access” to the email account and subsequently held a hearing to determine if he was in contempt. After the hearing, the court found Slodov in contempt, citing his failure to provide the required access. He was ordered to pay attorney fees and provide access to the email account until the HOA indicated access was no longer needed.
The Appeal and the Court’s Decision
Slodov appealed the contempt finding, presenting three arguments.
First Assignment of Error: Jurisdiction
Slodov’s first argument centered on whether the trial court had the authority to enforce the Agreed Judgment Entry. He claimed the court lost jurisdiction once he made the required payment. However, the appellate court disagreed. The court pointed out that the Agreed Judgment Entry explicitly stated the court would retain jurisdiction until payment was received and a notice of compliance was filed. Since no notice of compliance was filed, the court retained jurisdiction. The appellate court found this argument had no merit.
Second Assignment of Error: Duration of Access
Slodov’s second argument focused on the duration of the email account access. He argued that the HOA’s right to access the account had expired, and the trial court shouldn’t have ordered him to provide it for a longer period. The appellate court explained that the trial court’s order for extended access was a remedial measure to compel compliance and benefit the HOA, not to punish Slodov. Therefore, this argument also failed.
Third Assignment of Error: Breach of Fiduciary Duty
Slodov’s third argument claimed the HOA board members breached their fiduciary duty to him by not immediately informing him of their inability to access the email account. He argued this prevented him from adequately defending himself at the contempt hearing. The appellate court rejected this argument, stating that Slodov was aware of the nature of the proceedings and what he needed to defend himself. The court also noted that the trial court explicitly found Slodov’s evidence unconvincing, and that he had failed to provide “unfettered access” as ordered.
The appellate court, after reviewing the arguments and the record, found all of Slodov’s assignments of error to be without merit, and affirmed the judgment of the Geauga County Court of Common Pleas.