2023 Ohio 155
Ohio Ct. App.2023Background
- Renee Budz lived in property at 4901 Shiloh View Dr. after her uncle, Robert Somerfield, purchased it; she paid monthly cash, taxes, insurance, and performed repairs and improvements.
- Robert died in 2018; Somerfield was appointed fiduciary of the ancillary Ohio estate and later pursued eviction; Renee and Gail were evicted in January 2020 after appeals.
- Renee filed probate claims seeking reimbursement for repairs and tornado-related damage (totaling about $58,145); the fiduciary rejected at least part of the claims and the probate court approved a final account in 2021.
- Renee and Gail sued in common pleas court under R.C. 2117.12 for reimbursement; cross-motions for summary judgment were filed and the trial court granted plaintiffs' motion, awarding $28,170 based on submitted receipts and denying defendants’ motion.
- The estate and fiduciary appealed, arguing res judicata and statutory timeliness (R.C. 2117.12), and contending plaintiffs failed to address affirmative defenses at summary judgment.
- The appellate court affirmed, holding defendants waived their affirmative defenses by failing to raise them in the trial court and applying precedent that a movant need not negate every affirmative defense to obtain summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness / probate-rejection (R.C. 2117.12) and res judicata | Claim was properly pursued in common pleas as a timely action after probate rejection/final account | Claim barred by statute of limitations and by res judicata from prior civil proceedings | Court declined to decide merits; defendants waived these defenses by not raising them in trial court opposing summary judgment |
| Burden on movant to negate affirmative defenses at summary judgment | A plaintiff moving for summary judgment need not negate nonmoving party’s affirmative defenses (Todd) | Movant must address affirmative defenses (relying on pre-Todd authority) | Court follows Todd: movant need not negate every possible defense; nonmovant must produce evidence showing genuine issue |
| Merits — amount recoverable for repairs/unjust enrichment | Plaintiffs submitted receipts and affidavit showing $28,170 in documented repairs and additionally alleged $31,000 tornado repairs | Defendants did not produce evidence disputing the documented $28,170 and did not challenge plaintiffs’ summary judgment evidence | Trial court correctly awarded $28,170; the additional $31,000 claim lacked corroborating evidence and was denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Todd Dev. Co., Inc. v. Morgan, 880 N.E.2d 88 (Ohio 2008) (moving party need not negate nonmoving party’s affirmative defenses in summary judgment motion)
- Dresher v. Burt, 662 N.E.2d 264 (Ohio 1996) (nonmoving party must produce specific facts showing genuine issue after movant meets initial burden)
- Mitseff v. Wheeler, 526 N.E.2d 798 (Ohio 1988) (movant bears initial burden on summary judgment)
- Zivich v. Mentor Soccer Club, Inc., 696 N.E.2d 201 (Ohio 1998) (summary judgment standard explained)
- ABN AMRO Mtge. Group v. Meyers, 824 N.E.2d 1041 (Ohio App.) (earlier appellate rule that movant must address affirmative defenses; noted as superseded by Todd)