Opinion
NO. 2014-CA-000587-MR
05-15-2015
EDWARD H. FLINT APPELLANT v. COACH HOUSE, INC.; LINDA HILL; DON WILCOX; NORMA SAVAGE; SUSAN RAY; FRED JACOBS; NANCY OSTERTAG AND MULLOY PROPERTIES, INC. APPELLEES
BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT: Edward H. Flint, Pro se Louisville, Kentucky BRIEF FOR APPELLEES: Chris J. Gadansky Robert T. Watson Louisville, Kentucky
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE MITCHELL PERRY, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 14-CI-000178
OPINION
REVERSING AND REMANDING
BEFORE: DIXON, KRAMER AND THOMPSON, JUDGES. THOMPSON, JUDGE: Edward H. Flint appeals from an order of the Jefferson Circuit Court dismissing his action against Coach House, Inc., its Board of Directors, Linda Hill, Don Wilcox, Norma Savage, Susan Ray, Fred Jacobs, Nancy Ostertag and its property management company, Mulloy Properties, Inc. We refer to the defendants collectively as Coach House.
Kathleen Vine was named in the complaint but is not named as an appellee in the notice of appeal.
The circuit court found that a permanent injunction issued restricting Flint from filing future litigation against Coach House, Inc. and individuals and entities associated with Coach House, Inc. was valid and precluded this action. Because this Court subsequently vacated the order issuing the injunction, the only possible result in this case is to reverse and remand.
It is not an exaggeration to say that Flint's court filings have been prolific. To place the present case in historical perspective, we recite the relevant background.
Flint's eight year court dispute with Coach House began in 2007 when as a condominium owner at the Coach House Condominiums in Jefferson County, Flint ran for election to one of four vacant positions on the condominium's Board of Directors. After unsuccessfully seeking election, Flint filed an action alleging he had been discriminated against and denied his rights; requesting that the election results be declared void and new elections held; and that anyone found guilty of vote tampering or obstruction be declared ineligible to run for office in the future. Flint v. Coach House, Inc., 2009-CA-000136-MR, 2009-CA-000202-MR, 2009 WL 3878145, 1 (Ky.App. 2009). The Jefferson Circuit Court granted summary judgment and this Court affirmed. Id.
Undaunted, Flint filed a series of similar actions. See Flint v. Coach House, Inc., 2011-CA-001166-MR, 2011 WL 4502348 (Ky.App. 2011); Flint v. Coach House, Inc., 2012-CA-000580-MR, 2013 WL 869649 (Ky.App. 2013); Flint v. Coach House, Inc., 2012-CA-001056-MR, 2014 WL 354650 (Ky.App. 2014). In June 2012, Coach House Inc., exacerbated by Flint's repeated filings and allegedly having lost an insurance carrier because of the litigations and suffering a decrease in property values, filed an action in the Jefferson Circuit Court seeking a permanent injunction against Flint to preclude future court action against it.
The Jefferson Circuit Court held a hearing regarding whether to grant the injunction. After hearing Coach House, Inc.'s arguments, the circuit court refused to permit Flint to present any argument because he was not an attorney and proceeding pro se. On August 3, 2012, the circuit court granted a permanent injunction against Flint enjoining him from filing any actions against "Coach House, Inc., its present and past officers and directors, its present and past employees, its present or past attorneys, its present and past managing agents or any present or past unit owner, without first obtaining leave of this Court to do so[.]" The court also awarded Coach House Inc. attorney fees and costs in the amount of $11,579.20. Flint appealed.
While Flint's appeal of the judgment granting the injunction was pending, on January 10, 2014, he filed this action in the Jefferson Circuit Court against Coach House. Although riddled with various allegations, some so vague as to be indiscernible, Flint alleges the named current or former Coach House, Inc. Board of Directors breached certain fiduciary duties and must be removed and precluded from seeking re-election. He also alleges harassment and discrimination by the Board; that the Board engaged in a conspiracy against him; that he has been denied the inspection of records; meetings were improperly closed; money had been misspent; and the Board refused to comply with Flint's demands. He also asserts claims against Mulloy Properties, Inc. for breach of contract.
Coach House filed a motion to dismiss based on the 2012 injunction granted by the Jefferson Circuit Court. After considering memorandums filed by Coach House and Flint and hearing oral arguments, the circuit court issued an order on April 1, 2014. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss reasoning as follows:
Here, Flint is restricted from filing litigation against Coach House and persons and entities associated with Coach House. This restriction is directly limited to Flint's previous frivolous filings and does not affect his access to the Courts. Further, in the case at bar Flint's claims are directly against individuals that Flint is prohibited from filing suit against. Accordingly, this Court finds that the Injunction against Flint is valid and that filing the present action violates that injunction. As a penalty for violating the Injunction and in accordance with the August 3rd, 2012 Injunction the Court grants Coach House's Motion to Dismiss.Thus, the circuit court's dismissal was expressly premised on the validity of the 2012 injunction.
On November 14, 2014, this Court rendered its opinion in Flint v. Coach House, Inc., 2012-CA-001371-MR, 2012-CA-01371-MR, 2014 WL 6093113 (Ky. App. 2014), deciding the validity of the 2012 injunction. This Court confirmed the trial court's power to enter an injunction restricting a pro se plaintiff from filing abusive, frivolous, or repetitious actions. Id. at 2. However, the trial court erred when it denied Flint an opportunity to present arguments at the hearing solely because he was pro se. This Court's decision was premised on the basic notion that the right to access to the courts is no less valued simply because a litigant is pro se. Id. Consequently, the injunction was vacated and the case remanded.
In light of this Court's prior opinion, the circuit court's reliance on what has been determined to be an invalid injunction and dismissal of Flint's complaint cannot withstand our scrutiny. The order of the Jefferson Circuit Court is reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings.
ALL CONCUR. BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT: Edward H. Flint, Pro se
Louisville, Kentucky
BRIEF FOR APPELLEES: Chris J. Gadansky
Robert T. Watson
Louisville, Kentucky