Campbell v. Krupp
961 N.E.2d 205
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Fisher, Fisher Jr., and Krupp families were involved in control and ownership disputes over Fisher’s Oregon, Ohio property; Fisher lived with Campbell (the estate plaintiff) until 2002 and later moved to a nursing facility.
- In 2003 Fisher executed a general power of attorney naming Krupp as attorney-in-fact; the acknowledgment omitted Fisher, and the document was not recorded in Lucas County until 2005.
- Guardianship proceedings were filed in Wood County; Krupp and Fisher Jr. were appointed co-guardians; guardians sought to borrow against the property for accessibility improvements, with an arrangement that funds would be paid as rent.
- A 2003 deed named Krupp as a co-owner, but several later 2004–2005 mortgages were executed post-incompetency; some deeds and loans were not properly approved by the Wood County court.
- In 2005 Krupp, acting as Fisher’s attorney-in-fact, and Mr. Krupp signed several refinancing mortgages; Old Republic issued title-insurance policies to Aames Funding, with no direct contract between Old Republic and Fisher.
- Campbell filed suit to quiet title in Fisher’s estate; the trial court granted partial summary judgment quieting title in Fisher’s estate but denied damages; Old Republic was granted summary judgment on damages claims; this appeal concerns the validity of the title and related damages claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Old Republic may be liable in tort for title-search conduct | Campbell argues tort liability due to negligent/reckless title search. | Old Republic contends economic-loss rule bars tort claims absent privity. | Old Republic not liable; no noncontractual duty established. |
| Whether Campbell can pursue claims absent privity against Old Republic | Campbell seeks tort or contract-based recovery for Fisher’s estate. | Old Republic relies on Thomas v. Guarantee Title to bar tort claims absent privity. | Thomas v. Guarantee Title controls; no viable noncontractual duty; no privity, so claims fail. |
| Whether the power of attorney and related deeds could be reformed or saved to validate mortgages | Campbell argues reformation or equitable correction could render mortgages valid. | Aames Funding seeks reform; Delfino governs: no reform to validate statutorily defective instrument. | Power of attorney invalid for failure to certify acknowledgment; no reform available; mortgages void. |
Key Cases Cited
- Thomas v. Guarantee Title & Trust Co., 81 Ohio St. 432 (1910) (abstracter liable only to those who employed him; contract-based remedy otherwise)
- Haddon View Invest. Co. v. Coopers & Lybrand, 70 Ohio St.2d 154 (1982) (duty to foreseeably rely extends to third parties beyond privity)
- Corporex Dev. & Constr. Mgt., Inc. v. Shook, Inc., 106 Ohio St.3d 412 (2005) (economic-loss rule; contract-based damages favored when duty arises from contract)
- Smith’s Lessee v. Hunt, 13 Ohio (1844) (defect in notarial acknowledgment can render mortgage invalid)
- Dodd v. Bartholomew, 44 Ohio St. 171 (1886) (construction vs execution; instrument salvaged via correction when possible)
- Mid-American Natl. Bank & Trust v. Gymnastics Internatl., Inc., 6 Ohio App.3d 11 (1982) (substantial compliance where mortgagor identified; corporate/agency context)
- Delfino v. Paul Davies Chevrolet, Inc., 2 Ohio St.2d 282 (1965) (2719.01 cannot cure statutory defects; reformation unavailable to validate)