# Robb v. Chagrin Lagoons Yacht Club, Inc.

> Ohio Supreme Court · March 6, 1996 · 75 Ohio St. 3d 264

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6773626

## Case

- **Full name:** Robb v. Chagrin Lagoons Yacht Club, Inc.
- **Court:** Ohio Supreme Court
- **Decided:** March 6, 1996
- **Citations:** 75 Ohio St. 3d 264; 662 N.E.2d 9
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Resnick
- **Judges:** Cook, Douglas, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Sweeney, Wright
- **Cited by:** 134 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6773626

## Opinion text

Alice Robie Resnick, J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part. I agree in substance with the majority’s statement that “[t]o substantially comply with the club’s constitution, appellants had to provide appellees notice and an opportunity to be heard.” However, as the court of appeals correctly points out, “Article 2, Section 4 of the club’s constitution states that if the grievance committee cannot resolve the dispute raised in a grievance, notice of the charges must be forwarded to the member by certified mail. Section 4 then expressly states that a formal closed ‘hearing’ must be conducted by the board of trustees, which must afterwards make a recommendation as to whether disciplinary action is warranted.
“As appellants [Frank Robb et al.] aptly note, the trial court’s entire analysis as to whether they had received due process was predicated upon the determination that the special meeting of the voting members constituted a ‘hearing.’ However, the plain wording of the club’s constitution indicates that the ‘hearing’ on a grievance is to be held before the board, not the voting members.”
Clearly, pursuant to this constitution, the grievant must be afforded the opportunity to be heard and to present a defense at the board meeting. Appellees were not afforded this opportunity. While I strongly believe that disagreements within a private club should be resolved internally, the club does not have carte blanche to proceed however it pleases. Due process must still be provided to a member. The process that is due a grievant member in such circumstances is that which is set forth in the club’s regulations, constitution, and by-laws.
The majority mistakenly determines that the club “substantially” complied with the club’s constitution when in actuality there was not even a semblance of compliance. I agree with the court of appeals that the “board of trustees acted beyond [its] power” by not holding a proper hearing. Due to their failure to comply with Section 4, Article 2 of the club constitution regarding notice and hearing, appellants should not be entitled to judgment as a matter of law. I would affirm the judgment of the court of appeals in its entirety.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6773626. Public record. Not legal advice.