AM & JV, L.L.C. v. MyFlori, L.L.C.
2018 Ohio 600
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Mitrevski and Velio formed AM and JV, LLC to operate a used-car dealership; title to the dealership property was transferred to AM and JV and the operating agreement required unanimous consent to transfer company property.
- In 2010–2012 the partners split operations: Mitrevski left the property and started a separate lot; Toty Auto Repair began leasing part of the property and paying rent; Velio later transferred the property to his holding company MyFlori.
- Appellees (Mitrevski and AM and JV) sued MyFlori and Velio for quiet title and conversion (including conversion of rental income); appellants filed multiple counterclaims including conversion and breach of fiduciary duty.
- A jury found the property remained an AM and JV asset, awarded AM and JV $110,727 for rent received by Velio, and awarded Velio $43,282.75 on his counterclaims (including $40,000 for conversion).
- Appellants moved for new trial or additur (arguing the $40,000 conversion award was inadequate) and for remittitur (arguing tax payments by Velio should reduce the $110,727 award). The trial court denied relief; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mitrevski / AM & JV) | Defendant's Argument (Velio / MyFlori) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the jury award to Velio on his conversion counterclaim was inadequate so as to require a new trial or additur | Jury correctly assessed damages; appellees asserted conversion occurred and the jury’s award stands | Velio argued he was entitled to larger damages (half of AM & JV’s 2010 ending inventory and additional proceeds from vehicle sales) and thus the $40,000 award was inadequate | Court held the jury’s verdict was supported by evidence and credibility determinations; denied new trial/additur (no abuse of discretion) |
| Whether the $110,727 award for conversion of rental income should be reduced by taxes Velio paid (remittitur) | Appellees disputed that Velio proved he paid the taxes; thus no deduction required | Velio pointed to tax payments (totaling $16,872.73) and argued the award should be reduced by that amount | Court held the jury could disbelieve Velio’s tax-payment evidence; remittitur not warranted because the jury’s assessment was supported by the evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Malone v. Courtyard by Marriott Ltd. Partnership, 74 Ohio St.3d 440 (Ohio 1996) (explains purpose of a new trial to prevent miscarriages of justice and deference to trial court on credibility)
- Mannion v. Sandel, 91 Ohio St.3d 318 (Ohio 2001) (standard of review for motions under Civ.R. 59)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (definition of abuse of discretion)
- Rohde v. Farmer, 23 Ohio St.2d 82 (Ohio 1970) (discusses jury verdicts, new trials, and trial court deference)
- Wightman v. Consol. Rail Corp., 86 Ohio St.3d 431 (Ohio 1999) (trial court’s inherent authority to remit excessive awards and remittitur factors)
- Moskovitz v. Mt. Sinai Med. Ctr., 69 Ohio St.3d 638 (Ohio 1994) (discusses remittitur context)
- Dardinger v. Anthem Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 98 Ohio St.3d 77 (Ohio 2002) (appellate court authority to order remittitur)
- Chester Park Co. v. Schulte, 120 Ohio St. 273 (Ohio 1929) (historical authority on remittitur)