
    Winchell et al., Appellants, v. Burch et al., Appellees.
    [Cite as Winchell v. Burch (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 1209.]
    (Nos. 96-2268 and 96-2334
    Submitted September 23, 1997
    Decided November 5, 1997.)
    
      Rex W. Post, for appellants.
    
      Mitchell L. Alperin, for appellees.
    
      Brouse & McDowell and Jay P. Porter, urging affirmance for amicus curiae, The Oaks of Aurora Condominium Association.
   The appeal in case No. 96-2268 is dismissed, sua sponte, as having been improvidently allowed.

There being no conflict, the cause in case No. 96-2334 is dismissed, sua sponte, as having been improvidently certified. S.Ct.Prac.R. IV(2)(B); Whitelock v. Gilbane Bldg. Co. (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 594, 613 N.E.2d 1032.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer and Cook, JJ., concur.

Lundberg Stratton, J., dissents.

Lundberg Stratton, J.,

dissenting. I respectfully dissent and would find that the addition of the Burches’ new enlarged deck reduced the percentage of ownership of common areas so as to require a unanimous vote of all unit owners to amend the Declaration of Condominium Ownership in compliance with R.C. 5311.04(D). Therefore, I would find that the Second Appellate District’s interpretation of R.C. 5311.04(D) in Falls Homeowners’ Assn., Inc. v. Aveyard (July 27, 1994), Montgomery App. No. 14250, unreported, 1994 WL 409626, is the correct interpretation and would reverse the judgment of the court of appeals in this case.  