FIRST DISTRICT
COURT OF APPEALS
THESE SUMMARIES ARE NEITHER APPROVED IN ADVANCE NOR ENDORSED BY THE COURT. THEY ARE NOT HEADNOTES OR SYLLABI. INTERESTED PARTIES SHOULD OBTAIN COPIES OF THE ACTUAL DECISIONS FROM THE CLERK OF THE COURT OF APPEALS.
DATE: Friday, December 20, 2024
CAPTION: BURCICA V. LUDY
APPEAL NOS.: C-210468, C-230557, C-220343
TRIAL NO.: A-1804264
KEY WORDS: LANDLORD/TENANT — DAMAGES — ATTORNEY FEES
SUMMARY: The trial court did not err in denying plaintiff landlord’s full claim of damages where the landlord failed to sufficiently preserve her morning-of-trial request for additional damages, the trial court’s finding of ordinary wear and tear was not against the manifest weight of the evidence, and the trial court’s finding that the parties mutually agreed to terminate the lease was supported by the evidence.
The trial court did not err in awarding damages to defendant tenant for moving expenses based on constructive eviction where the record shows that, despite the subsequent agreement reached between the landlord and tenant, the landlord’s retaliatory conduct and breach of the peace were the acts that compelled the tenant to leave.
The trial court did not err in awarding damages to the tenant for lost wages where the record credibly established that the landlord visited the tenant’s workplace for the purposes of harassing her or trying to get her fired and the tenant left work due to the intrusion. [See CONCURRENCE: Proximate cause existed on the claim for lost wages based on the trial court’s unchallenged finding that the tenant left work because the landlord showed up.]
The trial court did not err in awarding damages to the tenant for intentional infliction of emotional distress where the court issued detailed findings in its judgment entry supporting the various elements of the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress and the landlord neglected to challenge those findings or otherwise explain why they defied the manifest weight of the evidence. [But see DISSENT: The evidence presented was insufficient as a matter of law to support a claim of damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress where the tenant failed to present requisite evidence to act as a guarantee of the genuineness of her claim.]
The trial court did not err in awarding damages to the tenant for rent abatement where the tenant testified that the premises had no value and the landlord offered no evidence to rebut this assertion.
The trial court did not err in awarding punitive damages to the tenant where the record supports that the landlord acted with malice.
The trial court abused its discretion in failing to award attorney fees to the tenant where the trial court found that the landlord violated R.C. 5321.15(A) and 5321.16 of Ohio’s Landlord-Tenant Act.
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND CAUSE REMANDED; APPEAL DISMISSED IN C-220343
JUDGES: OPINION by BERGERON, J.; KINSLEY, J., CONCURS and ZAYAS, P.J., CONCURS IN PART AND DISSENTS IN PART.
CAPTION: BRUEMMER V. GILLIGAN
APPEAL NOS.: C-240091, C-240108
TRIAL NO.: A-2203467
KEY WORDS: EMPLOYMENT – CORPORATIONS – MINORITY SHAREHOLDERS – WRONGFUL DISCHARGE – BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY – CONTRACTS RELEASES
SUMMARY: The trial court did not err in granting a motion for summary judgment filed by defendants majority shareholders on plaintiff minority shareholder’s claims for breach of fiduciary duty and wrongful discharge where the evidence showed that the termination of plaintiff’s employment had a legitimate business purpose.
The trial court did not err in granting plaintiff’s motion to dismiss defendants’ counterclaim for damages based on the terms of two releases contained in two redemption agreements, where the clear and unambiguous language of the agreements showed that they only governed the purchase of plaintiff’s ownership interest in the companies, not his employment relationship with the companies.
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
JUDGES: OPINION by WINKLER, J.; BERGERON P.J., and CROUSE, J., CONCUR.
CAPTION: GREEN V. PETERS
APPEAL NO.: C-240126
TRIAL NO.: A-2302271
KEY WORDS: CIV.R. 12(B)(6) — INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS — DEFAMATION — STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS — MOTION TO AMEND
SUMMARY: The trial court did not err in dismissing plaintiff’s complaint for intentional infliction of emotional distress for failure to state a claim where the complaint conclusively established that the claim was time-barred by the applicable statute of limitations: the claim in substance was a defamation claim subject to the one-year statute of limitations for defamation.
The trial court did not err in denying plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend his complaint where such amendment would be futile.
Based on a review of the record, the trial court did not fail to consider any information that could have resulted in a different outcome than dismissal.
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
JUDGES: OPINION by ZAYAS, J.; BOCK, P.J., and KINSLEY, J., CONCUR.
CAPTION: G. H. BUILDING LLC V. BREVING
APPEAL NO.: C-240182
TRIAL NO.: 23CV05415
KEY WORDS: SUMMARY JUDGMENT — R.C. 2117.12 — MECHANIC’S LIEN
SUMMARY: The trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of an executor on plaintiff’s claim brought under R.C. 2117.12 alleging that the executor had wrongfully rejected plaintiff’s probate claim where the executor admitted that the estate owed plaintiff money, and a genuine issue of material fact existed as to the amount owed.
The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of an executor on plaintiff’s mechanics-lien claim where the evidence showed that the mechanic’s lien had been extinguished and the property had been sold to a third-party purchaser.
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND CAUSE REMANDED
JUDGES: OPINION by WINKLER, J.; ZAYAS, P.J., and BERGERON, J., CONCUR.
CAPTION: STATE V. HINDS
APPEAL NO.: C-240231
TRIAL NO.: C/23/TRD/26188
KEY WORDS: NO-CONTEST PLEA – FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE ORDER OR SIGNAL OF A POLICE OFFICER – MENS REA RECKLESSNESS
SUMMARY:The trial court did n0t err in finding defendant guilty of failure to comply with the order or signal of a police officer under R.C. 2921.331(A) after her no-contest plea where the State’s explanation of circumstances was sufficient to show that she acted recklessly.
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
JUDGES: OPINION by WINKLER, J.; BOCK, P.J., and CROUSE, J., CONCUR.