Beswick Group N. Am., L.L.C. v. W. Res. Realty, L.L.C.
2017 Ohio 2853
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- BGNA (seller) signed two six‑month exclusive listing agreements with Re/Max on Oct. 30, 2013 to market adjoining commercial properties; agreements preserved a six‑month post‑termination protection for purchasers shown during the term.
- Re/Max agents showed the properties, procured an offer from 3MB Capital during the listing term, and BGNA (through Beswick) admitted accepting that offer; closing occurred Nov. 12, 2014.
- Dispute: BGNA refused to pay Re/Max a 6% commission, claiming the sale closed after the listing/extension period; Re/Max filed a broker’s lien and notified escrow, which deposited funds with the court.
- BGNA sued Re/Max, Reimer, and Armington alleging breach, failure to market, missed closing, and wrongful lien filing; BGNA failed to respond to discovery and requests for admissions (which were deemed admitted).
- Trial court granted summary judgment for Re/Max based on admitted facts and affidavits showing Re/Max procured the buyer and a contract was formed during the listing term; BGNA’s Civ.R. 60(B) motion was denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Civ.R. 60(B) relief was warranted for failure to oppose summary judgment | BGNA: counsel did not see the electronic filing due to spam; excusable neglect warrants relief | Re/Max: BGNA had duty to monitor docket; failure to check is not excusable; BGNA also lacks meritorious defense | Denied — failure to show excusable neglect and no meritorious defense given admissions |
| Whether Re/Max was entitled to commission though closing occurred after listing expired | BGNA: closing date outside extension means no commission owed | Re/Max: contract protects brokers for sales to purchasers shown during term; contract for sale was formed during term | Granted — admissions establish contract formed during term; commission payable as a matter of law |
| Validity and remedy for broker’s liens after escrow deposited sufficient funds | BGNA: liens invalid / appellees failed to release liens as required and maintained encumbrances | Re/Max: R.C. 1311.92 extinguishes recorded liens when escrow retains funds; any release claim belongs to current owner with an interest | Summary judgment for Re/Max — liens extinguished by escrow deposit; BGNA lacks present legal/equitable interest to sue for unreleased lien |
| Standing to enforce release of lien after transfer of title | BGNA: alleges harm (credit) and challenges appellees’ failure to release lien | Re/Max: only a person with legal/equitable interest in property may sue under statute | BGNA lacks required property interest; no standing to maintain claim |
Key Cases Cited
- GTE Automatic Elec., Inc. v. ARC Indus., 47 Ohio St.2d 146, 351 N.E.2d 113 (Ohio 1976) (elements for Civ.R. 60(B) relief and meritorious defense standard)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (Ohio 1983) (abuse of discretion standard)
- Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (U.S. 1962) (standing requires personal stake in controversy)
- Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727 (U.S. 1972) (standing requires a legally cognizable interest)