Brannon v. Edman
2018 Ohio 70
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2018Background
- Plaintiff Michael Brannon sued Derrick and Nancy Edman alleging breach of contract and fraud arising from an alleged agreement for sale of real property at 1323 Weiser Ave., Akron; Brannon alleged he made monthly payments from Oct. 2013, reduced the balance from $21,000 to about $10,474, and made improvements in reliance on the agreement.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6), arguing the breach claim is barred by the statute of frauds and that the fraud claim lacked the particularity required by Civ.R. 9(B).
- Brannon filed a motion to amend to add specificity and opposed the motion to dismiss, arguing part performance removed the agreement from the statute of frauds and that fraud was pleaded with sufficient particularity.
- The trial court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss (apparently on statute-of-frauds grounds) without addressing Brannon’s motion to amend or explicitly ruling on Civ.R. 9(B).
- The Ninth District Court of Appeals reversed and remanded: it held dismissal on statute-of-frauds grounds was improper at the pleading stage given allegations of part performance, and directed the trial court to clarify its ruling on the motion to amend and consider defendants’ Civ.R. 9(B) arguments in the first instance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether statute of frauds bars contract claim | Brannon: allegations show part performance (possession, payments, improvements) so oral agreement is enforceable | Edman: agreement concerns transfer of land and must be in writing under statute of frauds | Reversed: pleadings sufficiently allege part performance to defeat a 12(B)(6) dismissal on statute-of-frauds grounds |
| Whether fraud claim pleaded with particularity (Civ.R. 9(B)) | Brannon: he pleaded facts (payments, inducement, improvements, refusal to accept payment) adequate to satisfy rule after amendment | Edman: fraud allegations are conclusory and not stated with requisite particularity | Not decided on appeal; court remanded for trial court to address Civ.R. 9(B) in first instance |
| Whether trial court properly dismissed entire complaint sua sponte on statute-of-frauds ground | Brannon: trial court erred by relying on affirmative defense without it being conclusively established on the face of complaint | Edman: dismissal appropriate because no written agreement was attached or alleged | Court: trial court erred—statute of frauds is an affirmative, fact-sensitive defense and cannot support dismissal unless conclusively established by the complaint |
| Whether trial court implicitly denied motion to amend without ruling | Brannon: trial court ignored his motion to amend and should have explicitly ruled or permitted amendment to cure specificity issues | Edman: (implicitly) dismissal made amendment futile | Court: remanded for trial court to clarify its treatment of the motion to amend and reconsider if denial was based solely on statute-of-frauds rationale |
Key Cases Cited
- Perrysburg Twp. v. Rossford, 103 Ohio St.3d 79 (recognizing de novo review for Civ.R. 12(B)(6) and pleading standards)
- Jefferson v. Bunting, 140 Ohio St.3d 62 (statute of frauds is an affirmative defense not listed among Civ.R. 12(B) defenses)
- Hodges v. Ettinger, 127 Ohio St. 460 (doctrine of part performance limited to certain real-estate contexts)
- GMAC Mtge., LLC v. Jacobs, 196 Ohio App.3d 167 (failure to rule on a motion gives rise to a presumption of denial; appellate guidance on unruled motions)