COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 78929 JOSEPH GEORGE, et al. : : Plaintiffs : : and : : STANLEY SHEFFIELD, et al. : : Movants-appellants : : JOURNAL ENTRY vs. : and : OPINION REALTY ONE PROPERTY MGT., : et al. : : Defendants-appellees : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION : SEPTEMBER 6, 2001 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING : Civil appeal from : Cuyahoga County Court of : Common Pleas : Case Nos. 343022, 356774, 357032, 360064, 384858, 385222, 387216, 387231, 387409, 387486, 387618, 388503, 388505, 388549, 388557, 388571, 388586, 388604, 388653, 388680, 389968, and 398427 JUDGMENT : AFFIRMED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION : (Continued) APPEARANCES: For plaintiffs-appellants: DANIEL J. KOLICK Attorney at Law Kolick & Kondzer 24500 Center Ridge Road, #175 Westlake, OH 44145 JOHN S. THOMAY -2- Attorney at Law 26777 Lorain Road, #707 North Olmsted, OH 44070 For defendant-appellee ANTHONY J. DAMELIO, JR. Realty One Property Attorney at Law Mgt. : Ziegler, Metzger & Miller 2020 Huntington Building 925 Euclid Avenue Cleveland, OH 44115-1441 For defendant-appellee MICHELE CHAPNICK Allstate Insurance TODD B. DENENBERG Co., et al : Attorneys at Law Grotefeld & Denenberg, LLC 30800 Telegraph Road, #3858 Bingham Farms, MI 48025 WALTER R. MATCHINGA Attorney at Law Weston, Hurd, Fallon, Paisley & Howley 2500 Terminal Tower 50 Public Square Cleveland, OH 44113-2241 For defendant-appellee RONALD V. RAWLIN Joseph Bartolozzi : Attorney at Law Rawlin, Gravens & Franey Co., LPA 1240 Standard Building 1370 Ontario Street Cleveland, OH 44113 (Continued) APPEARANCES (Cont.) : For defendant-appellee GEORGE GLAVINOS, JR. Elaine Biltz : Attorney at Law National City-East Sixth Building 1965 East Sixth Street, #507 Cleveland, OH 44114 For defendant-appellee JOHN J. SPELLACY Cincinnati Insurance Attorney at law Co. : 1540 Leader Building 526 Superior Avenue, N.E. Cleveland, OH 44114 For defendant-appellee HELEN A. THOMPSON Colonial Penn Ins. Attorney at Law Co. : Kreiner & Peters Co., LPA -3- 756 East 222nd Street Cleveland, OH 44123 For defendant-appellee DAN A. MORELL, JR. Commercial Union Ins. Attorney at law Co., et al : Dan Morell & Assoc. Co. 250 Spectrum Office Building 6060 Rockside Woods Boulevard Independence, OH 44131-7300 For defendant-appellee TODD J. McKENNA Marilyn Cornell : Attorney at Law 27801 Euclid Avenue, #450 Euclid, OH 44132-3500 For defendant-appellee GINA DESIDERIO SNOW Deepa Deshpande : Attorney at Law Williams, Sennett & Scully Co. 2241 Pinnacle Parkway Twinsburg, OH 44087-2367 (Continued) APPEARANCES (Cont.) : For defendant-appellee MICHAEL L. SNYDER East Ohio Gas Co. : DAN L. MAKEE Attorneys at Law McDonald, Hopkins, Burke & Haber Co. 2100 Bank One Center 600 Superior Avenue, E. Cleveland, OH 44114 For defendant-appellee MARK F. McCARTHY Fischer Controls Attorney at Law International : Arter & Hadden 1100 Huntington Building 925 Euclid Avenue Cleveland, OH 44115-1475 For defendant-appellee JOHN J. RUSSO Anna Ford : Attorney at Law Polito & Russo, LLP 21300 Lorain Road Fairview Park, OH 44126 For defendant-appellee LARRY A. WEISER -4- Vincent Franze : Attorney at Law 1750 Standard Building 1370 Ontario Street Cleveland, OH 44113 For defendant-appellee MICHAEL TROY WATSON Jones, Merle & Sylvia: Attorney at Law Watson & Watson The Superior Building, #400 815 Superior Avenue Cleveland, OH 44114 for defendant-appellee SVETLANA J. SCHREIBER Chaley Joseph, et al : Attorney at law 1224 Standard Building 1370 Ontario Street Cleveland, OH 44113 (Continued) APPEARANCES (Cont.) : For defendant-appellee THOMAS J. DORCHAK Joseph Kovacevic : Attorney at law The Crombie Law Firm 4615 Great Northern Boulevard North Olmsted, OH 44070 For defendant-appellee JEFFREY S. DUNLAP Landstyles, et al : Attorney at Law Ulmer & Berne Bond Court Building, #900 1300 East Ninth Street Cleveland, OH 44114-1583 For defendant-appellee CULLAN J. UHLINGER Motorists Mutual Attorney at Law Ins. Co. : 75 Public Square, #800 Cleveland, OH 44113-2001 For defendant-appellee STEWART L. COHEN Nationwide Ins. Co. : STEPHEN R. KURENS DAVID L. GORDON Attorneys at Law Kessler & Cohen 1705 Two Penn Center Philadelphia, PA 19102 JOSEPH E. CAVASINNI Attorney at law Reminger & Reminger Co., LPA 113 St. Clair Avenue, 7th Floor Cleveland, OH 44114 -5- For defendant-appellee GEORGE C. ZUCCO Ohio Casualty Group : Attorney at Law Monroe & Zucco 1525 Leader Building 526 Superior Avenue, N.E. Cleveland, OH 44114-1444 (Continued) APPEARANCES (Cont.) : For defendant-appellee MICHAEL J. KAPLAN Christine Pelton : Attorney at Law 395 Springside Drive Akron, OH 44333-2434 For defendant-appellee VINCENT A. STAFFORD Theresa Porcelli : Attorney at Law Joseph G. Stafford & Assoc. 380 Lakeside Place 323 Lakeside Avenue, W. Cleveland, OH 44113 For defendant-appellee MICHAEL P. McGUIRE Estate of Margaret Attorney at Law Rock, et al : 3359 West 58th Street Cleveland, OH 44102-5670 For defendant-appellee ANDREW A. KABAT The Annex Assurance JOHN P. O'NEILL Co., et al : Attorneys at Law Reminger & Reminger 113 St. Clair Building, #700 Cleveland, OH 44114 For defendant-appellee GIAN M. DECARIS The Hartford Ins. Co.: Attorney at Law Law Offices of Steven K. Kelley 7100 E. Pleasant Valley Road, #210 Independence, OH 44131-5556 For defendant-appellee THOMAS J. VOZAR Travelers Inc. Co., Attorney at Law et al : Vozar, Roberts & Matejczyk Co., LPA 3505 E. Royalton Road, #100 Cleveland, OH 44147 For defendant-appellee MICHAEL A. ROBUSTO Dan A. Vojtech : Attorney at Law UAW Legal Services Plan 707 Brookpark Road Brooklyn Heights, OH 44109 -6- (Continued) APPEARANCES (Cont.) : For defendant-appellee BRIAN D. SULLIVAN Westfield Ins. Co. : Attorney at Law Reminger & Reminger 113 St. Clair Building, #700 Cleveland, OH 44114-1273 For defendant-appellee BRUCE TYLER WICK Kurt Wiesemann : Attorney at Law Three King James South, #115 24600 Center Ridge Road Westlake, OH 44145-5624 -7- KENNETH A. ROCCO, P.J.: Proposed intervenors Stanley Sheffield, Louis Colatuono, Phillip Tolaro, Herman Hobbs, Ann Mangnan (Krueger), Loraine Davis, Eli Cotofan, and Cornelia Cotofan appeal from a trial court order denying their motion to intervene in Consolidated Case Nos. 343,022 and 388,505. While their brief does not set forth a separate statement of the assignments of error presented for review, see App.R. 16(A)(3), the table of contents lists the assignments of error as follows: ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NUMBER ONE THE COMMENCEMENT OF A CLASS ACTION IN AN OHIO COURT IS ON BEHALF OF THE ENTIRE CLASS, AND OPERATES TO STOP THE RUNNING OF THE APPLICABLE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR ALL OTHER CLASS MEMBERS UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE COURT ISSUES AN ORDER STATING THAT THE ACTION IS NOT PERMITTED TO PROCEED AS A CLASS ACTION. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NUMBER TWO A CLASS ACTION IS COMMENCED UPON THE FILING OF THE COMPLAINT, AS LONG A SERVICE IS MADE UPON THE NAMED DEFENDANTS WITHIN ONE YEAR THERE- AFTER. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NUMBER THREE WHERE A PLAINTIFF FAILS OTHERWISE THAN ON THE MERITS AND THE MATTER IS DISMISSED AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, THE PLAINTIFF IS PERMITTED TO FILE A NEW ACTION WITHIN ONE YEAR AFTER SUCH FAILURE IS JOUR- NALIZED BY THE COURT. -8- These assignments of error all pertain to just one of several grounds upon which the court may have denied appellants' motion to intervene specifically, the timeliness of appellants' motion. We find the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying appellants' motion to intervene on other grounds and accordingly overrule each of the assignments. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY These consolidated cases arise out of a fire at the Kings Path Condominium Complex in North Olmsted, Ohio on July 30, 1997. At least twenty1 separate suits relating to this fire were brought against various defendants and were consolidated in the common pleas court. 1The actual number of consolidated cases is in doubt. Appellees aver that approximately thirty-one separate suits have been brought concerning this fire and that they were all consolidated.The docket in the lead case, Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Case No. 343,022, shows that only nine other cases were consolidated with it, but twenty-two cases were listed on the notice of appeal here. One of the consolidated cases listed on the docket in Case No. 343,022 is not listed on the notice of appeal. Two of the cases listed on the notice of appeal are not related to this litigation and were included in error: Mary Miller v. Premier Restaurant Mgmt. Co., Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Case No. 357,032, and Sonjia Cleveland v. Roland Carter, Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Case No. 389,968. The dockets in ten others indicate that they were consolidated with Case No. 343,022, even though there is no correlative entry in Case No. 343,022. One of the cases listed in the notice of appeal is not included in the record, Case No. 388,503; it also is not listed on the docket of Case No. 343,022, so it is unclear whether that case was actually consolidated with the others. Nor is it clear whether there may be other cases relating to this fire whose dockets also reflect that they are consolidated with Case No. 343,022 although there is no correlative entry in the lead case. -9- Plaintiffs in one of the consolidated cases, Mundell v. Landstyles, Case No. 388,505, filed their complaint on July 29, 1999, asserting claims on behalf of themselves and all other Kings Path Condominium unit owners and/or occupiers. They moved for class certification on January 19, 2000. On June 19, 2000, appel- lants moved to intervene as plaintiffs in the Mundell action, anticipating a court order denying the motion for class certifica- tion. The court denied the motion for class certification on Octo- ber 10, 2000.2 Appellants sought leave to supplement their motion to intervene on October 24, 2000. The court denied the motion to intervene, without opinion, on November 3, 2000. LAW AND ANALYSIS A court order denying a motion to intervene is a final, appealable order. Jamestown Village Condominium Owner's Assn. V. Market Media Research, Inc. (1994), 96 Ohio App.3d 678, 694; Likover v. Cleveland (1978), 60 Ohio App.2d 154, 155. We review an order denying a motion to intervene for abuse of discretion. Widder & Widder v. Kutnick (1996), 113 Ohio App.3d 616, 624. In order for a person to be entitled to intervene as of right under Civ.R. 24(A), the proposed intervenor must demonstrate: (1) the application is timely; (2) the proposed intervenor claims an interest in the property or transaction that is the subject of 2The ruling on the motion for class certification is the subject of a separate appeal, Cuyahoga App. No. 78829, now pending before this court. It appears this appeal would be rendered moot if the motion for class certification should have been granted. Neither appellants nor appellees have addressed this issue. -10- the suit; (3) the proposed intervenor is so situated that disposi- ion of the action may, as a practical matter, impair or impede his or her ability to protect that interest; and (4) the existing parties do not adequately protect that interest. Widder & Widder, 113 Ohio App.3d at 624. All three of appellants' assignments of error focus on the first element, timeliness. However, even if we agreed that the motion to intervene was timely, we would still conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying appellants' motion to intervene because the proposed intervenors did not prove all of the other elements needed to demonstrate a right to intervene. The motion claimed the proposed intervenors all owned units in the condominium complex that were damaged by the fire. This fact alone does not demonstrate that the disposition of this action would impair or impede the intervenors' ability to protect any interest they might have in the subject of this suit. Appellants had the right to file their own independent complaint for the damages they suffered as a result of the fire.3 Appellants could not be bound by a finding in the defendants' favor in the Mundell case or in any other suit to which they were not a party, although collateral 3Appellants' argument that they are not barred by the statute of limitations actually places them in a Catch-22" situation. If their claims are not barred by the statute of limitations, their motion to intervene may be timely, but they cannot show that they have an interest in the case which would be impaired if they are not allowed to intervene. However, if they claim they cannot file a separate suit because it would be barred by the statute of limitations, they cannot argue that their motion here is timely. -11- estoppel might operate to their benefit if there is a factual finding against the defendants. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying appellants' motion to intervene as of right. Nor did the court abuse its discretion by denying appellants' motion for permissive intervention under Civ.R. 24(B). Even if there might be some common factual and legal issues, the potential confusion involved in the litigation of differing claims and damages suffered by each plaintiff would militate against the intervention of multi- ple plaintiffs. We therefore overrule each of appellants' assign- ments of error and affirm the trial court's judgment. -12- It is ordered that appellees recover of appellants their costs herein taxed. The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. JAMES D. SWEENEY, J. and JAMES J. SWEENEY, J. CONCUR PRESIDING JUDGE KENNETH A. ROCCO N.B. This entry is an announcement of the court's decision. See App.R. 22(B), 22(D) and 26(A); Loc.App.R. 22. This decision will be journalized and will become the judgment and order of the court pursuant to App.R. 22(E) unless a motion for reconsideration with supporting brief, per App.R. 26(A), is filed within ten (10) days of the announcement of the court's decision. The time period for review by the Supreme Court of Ohio shall begin to run upon the journalization of this court's announcement of decision by the clerk per App.R. 22(E). See, also, S.Ct.Prac.R. II, Section 2(A)(1). .